Popwell Bros. v. Lott-Lewis Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Popwell Bros. v. Lott-Lewis Co.

97 S.E. 105, 22 Ga. App. 695, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 693

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 16, 1918

Docket9665

StatusPublished

This text of 97 S.E. 105 (Popwell Bros. v. Lott-Lewis 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

Popwell Bros. v. Lott-Lewis Co., 97 S.E. 105, 22 Ga. App. 695, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 693 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

Where in an action on an alleged account stated, which was apparently barred by the statute of limitations, the plaintiff, in an effort to avoid the bar, averred that the original liability was revived by a. new promise to pay (Civil Code of 1910, § 4386), and all the testimony introduced showed conclusively that the “new promise” was not in writing, as is required by the mandatory provisions of the Civil Code, § 4383, a verdict in favor of the defendant’s plea that the account was [696]*696barred was demanded; and the finding of the jury in favor of the plaintiff should have been set aside, on the motion for a new trial.

Decided October 16, 1918.

Coniplaint; from city court of Brunswick—Judge Krauss. March 9, 1918.

Oscar Nail, O. B. Conyers, for plaintiffs in error. F. M. Scarlett Jr., contra.

Judgment. reversed.

Jenkins and Luhe, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

Where in an action on an alleged account stated, which was apparently barred by the statute of limitations, the plaintiff, in an effort to avoid the bar, averred that the original liability was revived by a. new promise to pay (Civil Code of 1910, § 4386), and all the testimony introduced showed conclusively that the “new promise” was not in writing, as is required by the mandatory provisions of the Civil Code, § 4383, a verdict in favor of the defendant’s plea that the account was [696]*696barred was demanded; and the finding of the jury in favor of the plaintiff should have been set aside, on the motion for a new trial.

Decided October 16, 1918.

Coniplaint; from city court of Brunswick—Judge Krauss. March 9, 1918.

Oscar Nail, O. B. Conyers, for plaintiffs in error. F. M. Scarlett Jr., contra.

Judgment. reversed.

Jenkins and Luhe, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 105, 22 Ga. App. 695, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/popwell-bros-v-lott-lewis-co-gactapp-1918.