Independence Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Realty Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Independence Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Realty Co.

172 S.E. 38, 178 Ga. 45, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 12

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 13, 1933

DocketNo. 9659

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 S.E. 38 (Independence Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Realty Co.) 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

Independence Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Realty Co., 172 S.E. 38, 178 Ga. 45, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 12 (Ga. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It was admitted upon the argument of this case that the liability of the Independence Indemnity Company, if any, is based upon the supplemental agreement or second bond referred to in the statement of facts. According to this, and as alleged in the petition, the Industrial Realty Company lent Myers $5000 on April 15, 1929, $5000 on June 1, 1929, and $8000 on October 9, 1929, said loans being evidenced by promissory notes due on demand. The suit was to enforce payment of the entire debt, with interest at 8% per annum from the dates of the several notes. The proceedings in the trial in the superior court are very fully stated in the petition for certiorari. Eleven assignments of error on the judgment of the Court of Appeals are given as reasons why the writ of certiorari should be granted. This court deemed the questions presented of such gravity and importance that the writ of certiorari was ordered to issue so that the legal questions presented by eminent counsel could be maturely investigated. After a careful consideration of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, in the light of a very painstaking investigation of the legal questions involved, we are of the opinion that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. If the plaintiffs in error have suffered injury, it is plain that they were the authors of their own misfortune.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., absent because of illness.

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

Russell, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It was admitted upon the argument of this case that the liability of the Independence Indemnity Company, if any, is based upon the supplemental agreement or second bond referred to in the statement of facts. According to this, and as alleged in the petition, the Industrial Realty Company lent Myers $5000 on April 15, 1929, $5000 on June 1, 1929, and $8000 on October 9, 1929, said loans being evidenced by promissory notes due on demand. The suit was to enforce payment of the entire debt, with interest at 8% per annum from the dates of the several notes. The proceedings in the trial in the superior court are very fully stated in the petition for certiorari. Eleven assignments of error on the judgment of the Court of Appeals are given as reasons why the writ of certiorari should be granted. This court deemed the questions presented of such gravity and importance that the writ of certiorari was ordered to issue so that the legal questions presented by eminent counsel could be maturely investigated. After a careful consideration of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, in the light of a very painstaking investigation of the legal questions involved, we are of the opinion that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. If the plaintiffs in error have suffered injury, it is plain that they were the authors of their own misfortune.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., absent because of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.E. 38, 178 Ga. 45, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/independence-indemnity-co-v-industrial-realty-co-ga-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack