Daniel v. Nixon

99 S.E. 225, 23 Ga. App. 687, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 291
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 7, 1919
Docket10122
StatusPublished

This text of 99 S.E. 225 (Daniel v. Nixon) 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
Daniel v. Nixon, 99 S.E. 225, 23 Ga. App. 687, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 291 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The court did not err _ in sustaining the demurrer to the plea, or in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. The plaintiff demurred to the answer and moved that the court strike it, on the grounds that it “undertakes to set up a plea by way of set-off and recoupment of debts not between the same parties and in their own right;” that the validity of the notes sued on and the amount due on them being admitted by the defendant, a claim arising out of the alleged transaction can not be recouped 'against.the suit; that the alleged failure of the plaintiffs to turn over the $5,000 received by them was a conversion and a tort, which can. not be pleaded as a set-off or recoupment against a suit on a contract. The court sustained the demurrer and struck the answer. F. H. Saffold, for plaintiff in error, cited:

Civil Code (1910), §§ 4339-40, 4407, 5672; 9 Ga. 594 (3, 4); 118 Ga. 345; 128 Ga. 336; 138 Ga. 496; 11 Ga. App. 488; 20 Ga. App. 36 (4, 5); 94 Ga. 171; 96 Ga. 474; 123 Ga. 784.

C. H. & R. S. Cohen, H. J. Fullbright, contra, cited:

Civil Code (1910), §§ 4403, 4407, 5521; 114 Ga. 923; 13 Ga. App. 280; 14 Ga. App. 72; Id. 84; 119 Ga. 926; 123 Ga. 14; 124 Ga. 944; 130 Ga. 251; 129 Ga. 234; 137 Ga. 648, 654 (4); 49 Ga. .491 (6); 2 Ga. App. 421; 5 Ga. App. 251; 13 Ga. App. 502; 17 Ga. App. 565; 142 Ga. 611; 55 Ga. 356; 59 Ga. 612; 81 Ga. 210; 97 Ga. 396; 110 Ga. 392.

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

Related

Meriwether v. Bird
9 Ga. 594 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1851)
Ingram v. Jordan
55 Ga. 356 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1875)
Smith, Son & Brother v. Printup Bros. & Co.
59 Ga. 610 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1877)
Green v. Combs
6 S.E. 582 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1888)
Sanderlin v. Willis
21 S.E. 291 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1894)
McAllister & Simmons v. Millhiser & Co.
96 Ga. 474 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1895)
Mashburn v. Inman
24 S.E. 39 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1895)
Harden v. Lang
36 S.E. 100 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Hecht v. Snook & Austin Furniture Co.
41 S.E. 74 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Nix v. Ellis
45 S.E. 404 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Ray v. Anderson
47 S.E. 205 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
House v. Oliver
51 S.E. 722 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Cornett v. Ault
53 S.E. 460 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Butler v. Holmes
57 S.E. 715 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hurt
58 S.E. 706 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Wolff v. Southern Railway Co.
60 S.E. 569 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)
Potts-Thompson Liquor Co. v. Capital City Tobacco Co.
74 S.E. 279 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912)
Ford & Co. v. Atlantic Compress Co.
75 S.E. 609 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912)
Janes v. City of Cedartown
80 S.E. 339 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
Copeland v. White
87 S.E. 846 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 S.E. 225, 23 Ga. App. 687, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-v-nixon-gactapp-1919.