McCrary v. Caskey

27 Ga. 54
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 15, 1859·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

We think, that the parol evidence was admissible to show the mistake in the time of the maturity of the note. It is conceded, that such evidence would be admissible for that purpose, if the case were in equity, and there can be no doubt, that it would. But why should we drive the plaintiff into equity,-if he can, as well, obtain redress at law. There is no reason why we should. Indeed there is a statute which says, that we shall not. It says, that in such a case, a plain[56] tiff “shall not be held to proceed with the forms of equity.” That is the statute of 1820, giving to plaintiffs the right to sue at law, in all equity cases, if he “ conceives,” that he can “ establish” “ his claim” “ without resorting to the conscience of the defendant.”

Judgment reversed.

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

McCrary v. Caskey, 27 Ga. 54 (Ga. 1859).

27 Ga. 54 (McCrary v. Caskey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McConnell v. Hulsey
87 S.E. 156 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Gaulding v. Baker
71 S.E. 1018 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Leffler Co. v. Dickerson
57 S.E. 911 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Thompson v. Hall & Long
67 Ga. 627 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1881)
Mansfield v. Barber
59 Ga. 851 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1877)