Evans v. Williams

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Evans v. Williams

113 S.E. 703, 29 Ga. App. 126, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 100

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 30, 1922

Docket12809

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 703 (Evans v. Williams) 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

Evans v. Williams, 113 S.E. 703, 29 Ga. App. 126, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 100 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Where in a suit against alleged joint obligors a verdict is found against one and a nonsuit granted as to the others, a bill of exceptions by the plaintiff complaining of the granting of the nonsuit, which makes only the defendants in whose favor the nonsuit was granted parties defendant to the bill of exceptions, will not be dismissed upon the ground that, in its failure to include as a party defendant to the bill of exceptions the defendant against whom the verdict was rendered, it fails to make all necessary parties. Whether or not the plaintiff could on another trial proceed to judgment against the defendants in whose favor the nonsuit was granted, without having had the verdict and judgment rendered against the other defendant set aside, is not a matter for consideration on the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions, but is a matter for defense in the trial court. See, in this connection, Almand v. Hathcock, 140 Ga. 26 (78 S. E. 345). The ruling here made, however, is not to be construed as passing upon the merits of such defense. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is therefore overruled.

[127]*127Decided September 30, 1922. G. L. Shepard, Wilson & Bennett, for plaintiffs. Parker & Parker, Parks, Beed & Garrett, for defendant.

2. This being a suit against several defendants to- recover the purchase price of certain materials alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendants upon an alleged joint contract in writing, to which jileas of non est factum and the general issue were filed by all the defendants save one, and there being opinion evidence based upon a comparison of handwritings to the effect that the signatures to the alleged contract were the signatures of the defendants, and there also being evidence that the plaintiff had delivered to the defendants the materials in accordance with the terms of the contract, and that the defendants had not paid the plaintiff the purchase price, a nonsuit was improperly granted.

Judgment reversed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Where in a suit against alleged joint obligors a verdict is found against one and a nonsuit granted as to the others, a bill of exceptions by the plaintiff complaining of the granting of the nonsuit, which makes only the defendants in whose favor the nonsuit was granted parties defendant to the bill of exceptions, will not be dismissed upon the ground that, in its failure to include as a party defendant to the bill of exceptions the defendant against whom the verdict was rendered, it fails to make all necessary parties. Whether or not the plaintiff could on another trial proceed to judgment against the defendants in whose favor the nonsuit was granted, without having had the verdict and judgment rendered against the other defendant set aside, is not a matter for consideration on the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions, but is a matter for defense in the trial court. See, in this connection, Almand v. Hathcock, 140 Ga. 26 (78 S. E. 345). The ruling here made, however, is not to be construed as passing upon the merits of such defense. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is therefore overruled.

[127]*127Decided September 30, 1922. G. L. Shepard, Wilson & Bennett, for plaintiffs. Parker & Parker, Parks, Beed & Garrett, for defendant.

2. This being a suit against several defendants to- recover the purchase price of certain materials alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendants upon an alleged joint contract in writing, to which jileas of non est factum and the general issue were filed by all the defendants save one, and there being opinion evidence based upon a comparison of handwritings to the effect that the signatures to the alleged contract were the signatures of the defendants, and there also being evidence that the plaintiff had delivered to the defendants the materials in accordance with the terms of the contract, and that the defendants had not paid the plaintiff the purchase price, a nonsuit was improperly granted.

Judgment reversed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 703, 29 Ga. App. 126, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-williams-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack