McColgan v. McKay

25 Ga. 631
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 15, 1858·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

We think, that the motion of McColgan, the plaintiff, for leave “to open his case, and prove that the paper” “ was an acknowledgment of an indebtedness for the amount of five hundred and twenty dollars,” should have been granted; especially, as McCqlgan resisted the nonsuit, insisting that Courts have no power to grant a nonsuit against the consent of the plaintiff, and it is, at least, a very doubtful question whether he was not right in this position. See 1. Pet. R 469.

[633]*633It is almost a matter of course, to let in evidence upon a point, to save a non-suit., The practice is commended by every consideration of expediency.

We, think, then, that the Court below, erred in refusing this- motion,

Judgment reversed and case reinstated.

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

McColgan v. McKay, 25 Ga. 631 (Ga. 1858).

25 Ga. 631 (McColgan v. McKay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richardson v. Potter
136 S.E.2d 493 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Service Casualty Co. v. Carr
113 S.E.2d 175 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Walker v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
170 S.E. 258 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Cone v. American Surety Co.
116 S.E. 648 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
McKenzie v. Patterson
109 S.E. 174 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Penn v. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.
60 S.E. 172 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)
Bridger v. Exchange Bank
56 S.E. 97 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Brooke v. Lowe
50 S.E. 146 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)