Loftis v. Flowers

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Loftis v. Flowers

53 S.E.2d 606, 79 Ga. App. 325, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 646

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 21, 1949

Docket32331.

StatusPublished

This text of 53 S.E.2d 606 (Loftis v. Flowers) 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

Loftis v. Flowers, 53 S.E.2d 606, 79 Ga. App. 325, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 646 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, P. J.

.1. The record of the former suit between the plaintiff and Chamblee-Camp Gordon Water, Light & Power Company was filed subsequently to the purchase of the sewer system by the present defendants from Chamblee-Camp Gordon Water, Light-& Power Coippany, and the present defendants were in no way bound by the adjudications in that suit. The defendants are privy'in estate only with respect to the estate at the time of their purchase from Chamblee-Camp Gordon Water, Light & Power Company, and, as to acts done, relations formed, or admissions made, .after the title had passed out of ChambleeCamp Gordon Water, Light & Power Company the defendants were in no way bound, nor should evidence of their subsequent acts or admissions be admitted, as they are without probative value. Code, § 38-407; Garrard v. Hull & Tobin, 92 Ga. 787, 789 (20 S. E. 357); Elwell v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 101 Ga. 496 (2) (28 S. E. 833); Alderman v. Alderman, 141 Ga. 600 (81 S. E. 899); Blakewood v. Yellow Cab Co. of Savannah, 61 Ga. App. 149 (6 S. E. 2d, 126). The court erred in admitting the record of the former suit.

2. In view of what has been held in the foregoing division of this opinion, it was likewise error to allow testimony concerning the outcome of the former suit.

For the reasons stated in the foregoing divisions of the opinion, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur.

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

MacIntyre, P. J.

.1. The record of the former suit between the plaintiff and Chamblee-Camp Gordon Water, Light & Power Company was filed subsequently to the purchase of the sewer system by the present defendants from Chamblee-Camp Gordon Water, Light-& Power Coippany, and the present defendants were in no way bound by the adjudications in that suit. The defendants are privy'in estate only with respect to the estate at the time of their purchase from Chamblee-Camp Gordon Water, Light & Power Company, and, as to acts done, relations formed, or admissions made, .after the title had passed out of ChambleeCamp Gordon Water, Light & Power Company the defendants were in no way bound, nor should evidence of their subsequent acts or admissions be admitted, as they are without probative value. Code, § 38-407; Garrard v. Hull & Tobin, 92 Ga. 787, 789 (20 S. E. 357); Elwell v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 101 Ga. 496 (2) (28 S. E. 833); Alderman v. Alderman, 141 Ga. 600 (81 S. E. 899); Blakewood v. Yellow Cab Co. of Savannah, 61 Ga. App. 149 (6 S. E. 2d, 126). The court erred in admitting the record of the former suit.

2. In view of what has been held in the foregoing division of this opinion, it was likewise error to allow testimony concerning the outcome of the former suit.

For the reasons stated in the foregoing divisions of the opinion, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 S.E.2d 606, 79 Ga. App. 325, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loftis-v-flowers-gactapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack