Kimball v. Kimball

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kimball v. Kimball

133 S.E. 295, 35 Ga. App. 462, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 911

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1926

Docket17047

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 S.E. 295 (Kimball v. Kimball) 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

Kimball v. Kimball, 133 S.E. 295, 35 Ga. App. 462, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 911 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. A defendant can not claim the benefit of an estoppel on account of contentions made by the plaintiff in a former suit, instituted against the same defendant, where it appears that the defendant resisted the previous contentions and in the former suit obtained an adjudication in his favor adversely thereto.

2. - “If the defendant, in any of the cases herein named, shall remove from this State, the time of his absence from the State, and until he returns to reside, shall not be counted or estimated in his favor.” Civil ■ Code (1910), § 4378. The fact that the defendant might have owned property within the State during the period of his nonresidence does not operate to prevent the tolling of the statute.

3. The evidence authorized a recovery within the amount accorded by the verdict for principal and interest, there being evidence sufficient to establish the nonresidence of the defendant, such as would bring within the statute of limitations the items for 1912 and 1913 recovered on in a suit filed in August, 1924.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. B. L. & II. 0. Cox, for plaintiff in error. Orrin Roberts, contra.

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