Harrison v. Joiner

101 S.E. 763, 24 Ga. App. 578, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 941
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 10, 1919
Docket10693
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 S.E. 763 (Harrison v. Joiner) 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
Harrison v. Joiner, 101 S.E. 763, 24 Ga. App. 578, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 941 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinions

Bkoyles, O. J.

1. The bill of exceptions in this case not only contains an exception to the disallowance of an amendment to the defendant’s plea, but also contains an exception to the final judgment rendered in the case. Therefore, there is no merit in the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the bill of exceptions on the ground that the plaintiff in "error can not bring a direct bill of exceptions complaining of the disallowance of an amendment to the defendant’s plea.

2. Where a plea of res adjudicata could have been filed at the appearance term of the case, it is too late to file it at the trial term. Merritt v. Bagwell, 70 Ga. 578 (3-a), 585.

(a) The instant case was returnable to the February term, 1917, of the [579]*579trial court; the original answer of the defendant was filed February 6, 1917, and the amendment to the answer, which set up a plea of res adjudicata, was tendered June 6, 1919, at the trial term. In this amendment ¿t appeared that the judgment relied on as a bar to the plaintiff’s cause of action was rendered on December 7, 1916. It therefore clearly appears on the face of the amendment itself that the plea of res adjudicata could have been filed at the appearance term of the court, to wit, in February, 1917. It follows that the court did not err in disallowing this amendment.

Decided December 10, 1919. Complaint; from city court of Dublin—Ira S. Chappell, judge pro hac vice. June 6, 1919. Larsen & OrocJcett, for plaintiff in error. J. S. Adams, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Lulce, J., dissents.

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

Related

New v. Quinn
119 S.E. 457 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 S.E. 763, 24 Ga. App. 578, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-joiner-gactapp-1919.