Lester v. Graham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lester v. Graham

123 S.E. 37, 32 Ga. App. 379, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 410

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1924

Docket15325

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 S.E. 37 (Lester v. Graham) 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

Lester v. Graham, 123 S.E. 37, 32 Ga. App. 379, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 410 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “A judgment founded on a verdict obtained by fraud practiced on the defendant and the court may be set aside, and the original case reinstated, in a court of law, with proper pleadings, and with all the,parties at interest as parties to the motion; the motion being made at the term of the court at which the verdict and judgment were entered, and the movant showing that he was not in laches, had a meritorious defense, and announcing ready for an instant trial. ” Roberts v. Roberts, 150 Ga. 757 (1) (105 S. E. 448).

2. “The defendant duly filed a plea presenting a meritorious defense to the action, and setting forth fully the alleged facts constituting his defense, [380]*380which was referred to in the motion to set aside the judgment against him and thus made a part of said motion, so that the motion itself disclosed the specific nature and character of the defense relied upon.” Maddox Coffee Co. v. McHan, 22 Ga. App. 198 (2) (95 S. E. 736).

Decided May 17, 1924. B. B. Jaclcson, T. L. Lanford, for plaintiff. B. M. Habersham, W. I. Heyward, contra.

3. This court cannot say that the judge abused his discretion in granting the prayer of the petition. Ford v. Clark, 129 Ga. 292 (58 S. E. 818).

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “A judgment founded on a verdict obtained by fraud practiced on the defendant and the court may be set aside, and the original case reinstated, in a court of law, with proper pleadings, and with all the,parties at interest as parties to the motion; the motion being made at the term of the court at which the verdict and judgment were entered, and the movant showing that he was not in laches, had a meritorious defense, and announcing ready for an instant trial. ” Roberts v. Roberts, 150 Ga. 757 (1) (105 S. E. 448).

2. “The defendant duly filed a plea presenting a meritorious defense to the action, and setting forth fully the alleged facts constituting his defense, [380]*380which was referred to in the motion to set aside the judgment against him and thus made a part of said motion, so that the motion itself disclosed the specific nature and character of the defense relied upon.” Maddox Coffee Co. v. McHan, 22 Ga. App. 198 (2) (95 S. E. 736).

Decided May 17, 1924. B. B. Jaclcson, T. L. Lanford, for plaintiff. B. M. Habersham, W. I. Heyward, contra.

3. This court cannot say that the judge abused his discretion in granting the prayer of the petition. Ford v. Clark, 129 Ga. 292 (58 S. E. 818).

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E. 37, 32 Ga. App. 379, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lester-v-graham-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack