Simpson v. McMillan

Supreme Court of Georgia

Simpson v. McMillan

102 S.E. 825, 150 Ga. 119, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 75

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1920

DocketNo. 1621

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 102 S.E. 825 (Simpson v. McMillan) 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

Simpson v. McMillan, 102 S.E. 825, 150 Ga. 119, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 75 (Ga. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) This court is without jurisdiction to entertain this writ of error, and it must be transferred to the Court of Appeals. This was merely a suit upon a promissory note, and a plea of failure of consideration. The defenses are altogether legal in nature; the fraud alleged could be shown in defense to the note in a common-law action. The defense is not equitable in its nature. The mere fact that the defendant, after setting up matters cognizable in a court of law as defense, adds a prayer that the note be canceled, will not give' this court jurisdiction on the ground that this is a case in equity. Appropriate matters of defense are pleaded to defeat the collection of the note. The cancellation of the note sued on was not necessary- to a complete defense. Parties can not by a mere prayer for cancellation, under the circumstances here shown, divest the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction and confer jurisdiction upon this court. The case will therefore be transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur, except Gilbert, J., absent for providential cause. '

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

Beck, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) This court is without jurisdiction to entertain this writ of error, and it must be transferred to the Court of Appeals. This was merely a suit upon a promissory note, and a plea of failure of consideration. The defenses are altogether legal in nature; the fraud alleged could be shown in defense to the note in a common-law action. The defense is not equitable in its nature. The mere fact that the defendant, after setting up matters cognizable in a court of law as defense, adds a prayer that the note be canceled, will not give' this court jurisdiction on the ground that this is a case in equity. Appropriate matters of defense are pleaded to defeat the collection of the note. The cancellation of the note sued on was not necessary- to a complete defense. Parties can not by a mere prayer for cancellation, under the circumstances here shown, divest the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction and confer jurisdiction upon this court. The case will therefore be transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur, except Gilbert, J., absent for providential cause. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E. 825, 150 Ga. 119, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-mcmillan-ga-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack