Mosely v. Mitchell
This text of 53 Ga. 356 (Mosely v. Mitchell) 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.
Opinions
It is sufficient to say that this case comes within the principle of the rule adopted in the case of Kelly vs. Brooks, 50 [358]*358Georgia, 582, and as the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitation when the motion was made to reinstate, there was no error in the judgment of the court in refusing the motion. For the reasons which control my opinion on this question, I refer to what I said in the cases of Tison vs. McAfee, 50 Georgia, 279, and Prescott vs. Bennett et al., Ibid., 266. As to the question, when was the mortgage in this case barred by the statute of limitations, seethe case of John George vs. James Gardner, 49 Georgia, 441.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
53 Ga. 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosely-v-mitchell-ga-1874.