Parker v. Timberlake Grocery Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Parker v. Timberlake Grocery Co.

30 S.E.2d 650, 71 Ga. App. 280, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 333

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 7, 1944

Docket30525.

StatusPublished

This text of 30 S.E.2d 650 (Parker v. Timberlake Grocery Co.) 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

Parker v. Timberlake Grocery Co., 30 S.E.2d 650, 71 Ga. App. 280, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 333 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

Where one is indebted, to another on an open account in excess of $200, and gives two checks for a part thereof, which are credited on the account, an action against him by the creditor for less than $200 to recover the full amount of the balance of the open account will lie, and is within the jurisdiction of the justice’s court (Acts 1941, p. 119), even though another action has been filed to recover on the checks which had been dishonored. “Debts which in the aggregate amount to more than justice’s court jurisdiction may be divided into liquidated demands, so as to bring them each within such jurisdiction.” Code § 24-1002. Justices’ courts have jurisdiction of suits on distinct evidences of debt although they are given for one and the same debt or consideration. Code, § 24-1003. Parris v. Hightower, 76 Ga. 631; Savannah Real Estate &c. Co. v. Silverberg, 108 Ga. 281 (33 S. E. 908). The facts do not bring the case within the rule against splitting a cause of action for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction. The court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Parker, J., concur.

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

Felton, J.

Where one is indebted, to another on an open account in excess of $200, and gives two checks for a part thereof, which are credited on the account, an action against him by the creditor for less than $200 to recover the full amount of the balance of the open account will lie, and is within the jurisdiction of the justice’s court (Acts 1941, p. 119), even though another action has been filed to recover on the checks which had been dishonored. “Debts which in the aggregate amount to more than justice’s court jurisdiction may be divided into liquidated demands, so as to bring them each within such jurisdiction.” Code § 24-1002. Justices’ courts have jurisdiction of suits on distinct evidences of debt although they are given for one and the same debt or consideration. Code, § 24-1003. Parris v. Hightower, 76 Ga. 631; Savannah Real Estate &c. Co. v. Silverberg, 108 Ga. 281 (33 S. E. 908). The facts do not bring the case within the rule against splitting a cause of action for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction. The court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Parker, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 S.E.2d 650, 71 Ga. App. 280, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-timberlake-grocery-co-gactapp-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack