Hill v. Vanduzer

37 Ga. 293
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 Ga. 293 (Hill v. Vanduzer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hill v. Vanduzer, 37 Ga. 293 (Ga. 1867).

Opinion

Harris, J.

On the trial below defendants having been sued on a note made by them, dated November, J1863, payable at one day, for $3,000.00, sought under and by virtue of the ordinance of the Convention of November, 1865, to show that the note was given for the loan of Confederate treasury notes — and to reduce the plaintiff’s demand to the gold value of said notes at the time of the loan. In the course of the trial defendants offered testimony to prove the value of the Confederate treasury notes at the time of the making of the note sued on, which the Court repelled. A verdict was then rendered for plaintiffs for the full amount of the note. The defendants thereupon moved for a new trial. The Judge becoming satisfied that he had erred in excluding proper testimony, granted a new trial.

This prompt and manly correction of error is highly commendable. If the errors occurring in the rapid dispatch of business in the Superior Courts were corrected as in this case more frequently than they are, (and our system contemplates such constant correction by them,) very much of the labor of the profession would be diminished thereby, expense [296]*296to parties litigant curtailed, and this tribunal relieved from reviewing and reversing many cases which should be corrected below. No higher praise can be accorded a Judge, than to say of him that his mind is always open to reason, that he is at all times uninfluenced by any pride of opinion, and that he is as prompt and as eager to discover an error in his own judgment as he would be to perceive it in that of another, and with frankness to acknowledge it.

We affirm the grant of a new trial in this case.

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

Related

Cook v. Attapulgus Clay Co.
184 S.E. 334 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 Ga. 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-vanduzer-ga-1867.