Smith v. Exchange Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. Exchange Bank

80 S.E. 213, 14 Ga. App. 98, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 424

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 9, 1913

Docket5168

StatusPublished

This text of 80 S.E. 213 (Smith v. Exchange Bank) 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

Smith v. Exchange Bank, 80 S.E. 213, 14 Ga. App. 98, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 424 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

Where the only defense interposed to a suit on a promissory note is a plea of usury; in which plea the defendant admits indebtedness in a specified sum, and the plaintiff, in open court, in effect admits the truth of the plea and avers his willingness to take judgment for the sum admitted to be due, it is not erroneous to permit such a judgment to be taken and to overrule an objection of the defendant that he is entitled to a finding by a jury that usury was exacted as alleged. Judgments are construed in connection with the pleadings, and the effect of the judgment rendered in the present ease was to adjudicate that usury had been charged; and this being so, the rights of the defendant are the same as if a verdict had been rendered in his favor upon [99]*99his plea of, usury, since a verdict in his favor would have been merely for the sum admitted to be due, without a special finding of usury.

Decided December 9, 1913.

Complaint; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Reece. June 21, 1913.

M. B. Eubanks, for plaintiff in error. Lipscomb & Willingham, Nathan Harris, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

Where the only defense interposed to a suit on a promissory note is a plea of usury; in which plea the defendant admits indebtedness in a specified sum, and the plaintiff, in open court, in effect admits the truth of the plea and avers his willingness to take judgment for the sum admitted to be due, it is not erroneous to permit such a judgment to be taken and to overrule an objection of the defendant that he is entitled to a finding by a jury that usury was exacted as alleged. Judgments are construed in connection with the pleadings, and the effect of the judgment rendered in the present ease was to adjudicate that usury had been charged; and this being so, the rights of the defendant are the same as if a verdict had been rendered in his favor upon [99]*99his plea of, usury, since a verdict in his favor would have been merely for the sum admitted to be due, without a special finding of usury.

Decided December 9, 1913.

Complaint; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Reece. June 21, 1913.

M. B. Eubanks, for plaintiff in error. Lipscomb & Willingham, Nathan Harris, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.E. 213, 14 Ga. App. 98, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-exchange-bank-gactapp-1913.