Johnson v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
Opinion
In the decisions in City of Atlanta v. Wilson, 70 Ga. 714, Stirk v. Central R. Co., 79 Ga. 497, Langston v. Marks, 68 Ga. 436, and Sweeney v. Malloy, 107 Ga. 80, construing the Civil Code, § 5043, it was held that the payment of costs was a condition precedent to the right to maintain a suit which had previously been dismissed or nonsuited, and that there was no [186] provision of law for recommencing an action by filing a pauper affidavit. If, therefore, the case is to be determined according to the law of force when the suit was originally nonsuited, the plea in abatement filed at the first term was properly sustained. If it be governed by the provisions of the act of December 18, 1901, the same result follows, since the plaintiff did not, at the time of instituting the second suit, file the affidavit required by that statute. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
45 S.E. 988 (Johnson v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.