Meeks v. American Law Book Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Meeks v. American Law Book Co.

125 S.E. 381, 159 Ga. 228, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 415

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1924

DocketNo. 4175

StatusPublished

This text of 125 S.E. 381 (Meeks v. American Law Book Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meeks v. American Law Book Co., 125 S.E. 381, 159 Ga. 228, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 415 (Ga. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

Where a plaintiff brought suit against a defendant for the recovery of a money verdict for breach of a contract (note), and pending suit the defendant paid the amount sued for, principal, interest, and costs, but by request of the defendant the case was neither marked settled on the docket nor dismissed by order of the court; and where, about twelve months subsequently, the defendant filed an amended answer to the original suit, in the nature of a cross-petition, praying for cancellation of the original contract for an alleged breach thereof by the plaintiff, and for the recovery of the amount paid by him to the plaintiff in settlement of the suit; and where no demurrer was [229]*229filed to the answer, and both parties went to trial and submitted evidence on the issue raised by the amended answer, which evidence did ■ not show a breach of the contract by the plaintiff, but on the contrary showed that the plaintiff tendered in open court all published volumes of the books for which the notes sued on were given, which tender the defendant refused, it was not error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.

No. 4175. November 13, 1924. Mdridge Quits, for plaintiff in error. A. J. & J. G. McDonald, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices coneur, except Russell, O. J., dissenting. Hines, J., concurs in the result.

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

Hill, J.

Where a plaintiff brought suit against a defendant for the recovery of a money verdict for breach of a contract (note), and pending suit the defendant paid the amount sued for, principal, interest, and costs, but by request of the defendant the case was neither marked settled on the docket nor dismissed by order of the court; and where, about twelve months subsequently, the defendant filed an amended answer to the original suit, in the nature of a cross-petition, praying for cancellation of the original contract for an alleged breach thereof by the plaintiff, and for the recovery of the amount paid by him to the plaintiff in settlement of the suit; and where no demurrer was [229]*229filed to the answer, and both parties went to trial and submitted evidence on the issue raised by the amended answer, which evidence did ■ not show a breach of the contract by the plaintiff, but on the contrary showed that the plaintiff tendered in open court all published volumes of the books for which the notes sued on were given, which tender the defendant refused, it was not error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.

No. 4175. November 13, 1924. Mdridge Quits, for plaintiff in error. A. J. & J. G. McDonald, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices coneur, except Russell, O. J., dissenting. Hines, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E. 381, 159 Ga. 228, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meeks-v-american-law-book-co-ga-1924.