Sample v. Lipscomb

18 Ga. 687
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 15, 1855
DocketNo. 97
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 18 Ga. 687 (Sample v. Lipscomb) 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
Sample v. Lipscomb, 18 Ga. 687 (Ga. 1855).

Opinion

By the Court.

Starnes, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] It is our opinion, that though, perhaps, it cannot be' said accurately that the instrument offered in evidence, and rulSd out by the Court, served to show in what manner the-note before the Court was to be paid, as was insisted on by the Counsel for the plaintiff in error; yet, that it did serve to prove the nature of the partnership, and may have served' to account for the manner in which the note was given up by Lipscomb to the other partners, as was alleged in the plea,, and to explain how it may have been delivered in payment of [690]*690his share of expenses, and permitted to remain in the hands •of W. A. Sample, as a mere partnership memorandum.

In this point of view, it may serve to elucidate or throw light upon the transaction. And we know that every fact or circumstance having this effect upon the issue being tried, constitutes proper evidence in any case.

We think that the Court erred, therefore, in rejecting this instrument.

[2.] We are also of opinion, that the Court erred in holding that the admissions of the plaintiff, as administratrix, did' not bind the estate, and was not proper evidence in this case.

Administrators or executors, plaintiffs in an action, are bound by their admissions, in relation to the subject-matter of the suit, and they make them at their peril. They may injure the estate by making these improvidently; but the consequences must be between them and the estate. These admissions must be acted on by third persons with whom they deal, and must be held binding on those who make them, certainly, in all suits instituted by them. Hill vs. Buckminster, (5 Pick. 391.)

Any other rule would most unjustly place every one hav-ing dealings with these trustees, entirely at their mercy. ¡

Let the judgment be reversed.

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

Related

West v. State
492 S.E.2d 576 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Whitley v. Gwinnett County
470 S.E.2d 724 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Medi-Clean Services, Inc. v. Hill
241 S.E.2d 290 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Mathis v. Purdy
190 S.E.2d 618 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Shelnutt v. Phillips
147 S.E.2d 803 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Brower
127 S.E.2d 33 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Bond v. State
122 S.E.2d 310 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Georgia Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Marshall
207 Ga. 314 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
GA. SAVINGS BANK & TRUST CO. v. Marshall
61 S.E.2d 469 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Miller Service Inc. v. Miller
45 S.E.2d 466 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Simmons Company v. Hardin
43 S.E.2d 553 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Bell v. State
35 S.E.2d 383 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
Bailey v. State
34 S.E.2d 926 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
A. A. A. Highway Express Inc. v. Hagler
34 S.E.2d 462 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
McNabb v. State
29 S.E.2d 643 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Belber v. Calvo
16 P.R. 342 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1910)
Alexander v. State
66 S.E. 274 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)
Horkan v. Benning
36 S.E. 432 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Lawson v. Powell
31 Ga. 681 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Ga. 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sample-v-lipscomb-ga-1855.