Courson v. Lynn

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Courson v. Lynn

172 S.E. 685, 48 Ga. App. 297, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 44

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 23, 1934

Docket23139

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 S.E. 685 (Courson v. Lynn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Courson v. Lynn, 172 S.E. 685, 48 Ga. App. 297, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 44 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

J. S. Lynn, as temporary administrator of the estate of Amy Lynn, brought an action on a promissory note against Willie Courson, as principal, and others as sureties. The petition was in the usual form, and the plea and answer of Courson admitted the allegations of the petition, but interposed certain affirmative defenses. On motion made at the trial term the court struck these affirmative defenses, thus leaving the allegations of the petition admitted. No exception to this ruling was preserved. At this stage of the case Courson offered the following amendment to his answer: “This defendant denies that he is indebted to the plaintiff in any sum whatever on said note, as same has been paid by his wife in service in her last illness.” The court, upon his own motion, rejected the amendment, and entered a judgment against the defendants for principal, interest, and attorney’s fees. The controlling exception in the record is to the judgment disallowing the amendment. Held:

1. The proffered amendment was too vague and indefinite, and the court did not err in disallowing it. See Miller v. Keys Commission Co., 25 Ga. App. 100 (102 S. E. 555); Jones v. Americus Automobile Co., 15 Ga. App. 453 (83 S. E. 642) ; Anderson v. First National Bank of Millen, 22 Ga. App. 760 (97 S. E. 196).

2. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MacIntyre, J.

J. S. Lynn, as temporary administrator of the estate of Amy Lynn, brought an action on a promissory note against Willie Courson, as principal, and others as sureties. The petition was in the usual form, and the plea and answer of Courson admitted the allegations of the petition, but interposed certain affirmative defenses. On motion made at the trial term the court struck these affirmative defenses, thus leaving the allegations of the petition admitted. No exception to this ruling was preserved. At this stage of the case Courson offered the following amendment to his answer: “This defendant denies that he is indebted to the plaintiff in any sum whatever on said note, as same has been paid by his wife in service in her last illness.” The court, upon his own motion, rejected the amendment, and entered a judgment against the defendants for principal, interest, and attorney’s fees. The controlling exception in the record is to the judgment disallowing the amendment. Held:

1. The proffered amendment was too vague and indefinite, and the court did not err in disallowing it. See Miller v. Keys Commission Co., 25 Ga. App. 100 (102 S. E. 555); Jones v. Americus Automobile Co., 15 Ga. App. 453 (83 S. E. 642) ; Anderson v. First National Bank of Millen, 22 Ga. App. 760 (97 S. E. 196).

2. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.E. 685, 48 Ga. App. 297, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courson-v-lynn-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack