Stacer v. Ehrlich

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stacer v. Ehrlich

95 S.E. 308, 22 Ga. App. 94, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 165

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 15, 1918

Docket9262

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 308 (Stacer v. Ehrlich) 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

Stacer v. Ehrlich, 95 S.E. 308, 22 Ga. App. 94, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 165 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

To a suit upon a promissory note, owed by her intestate (Mrs. McLendon), the administratrix pleaded: “That the said Joe Ehrlich received from her as administratrix two bales. of cotton which was raised on the places belonging to Mrs. Moselle C. McLendon, late of said county, deceased, said Ehrlich knowing that said cotton was rent cotton for rent of year he received same, to wit, for year 1916; that said two bales of cotton were received by the said Ehrlich and should be credited on said indebtedness due on this note, to wit: one bale weighing four hundred seventy-eight pounds, at 18 cents per pound, making a total of eighty-six and 04/100 dollars; and one bale weighing five hundred pounds, at 18 cents per pound, making a total amount paid on said note by Mrs. Mary E. Stacer, adm’x, as aforesaid, a total sum of one hundred seventy six and 04/Í00 dollars, said payments being made on dates unknown to this defendant, said cotton being delivered to the said Ehrlich by one James Stephens, a tenant on the defendant’s place, and, therefore, this defendant is unable to set out the time and date of, and the place of said payment, as accurately as required by law; that said cotton was delivered to the said Ehrlich during the latter part of'1916, and in the town of Swainsboro by the said James Stephens.” Upon demurrer the court struck this plea. Held, that [95]*95the plea did not show that the cotton was delivered with direction that it be credited on the note, or that it was received as a credit on the note; nor does the plea set forth, with that definiteness required by law, the defense of payment. The court therefore did not err in sustaining the demurrer and in striking the plea.

Decided March 15, 1918.

Complaint; from city court of Swainsboro—Judge Kirkland. August 29, 1917.

F. H. Saffold, for plaintiff in error. T. N. Brown, eontra.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Jenhins, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

To a suit upon a promissory note, owed by her intestate (Mrs. McLendon), the administratrix pleaded: “That the said Joe Ehrlich received from her as administratrix two bales. of cotton which was raised on the places belonging to Mrs. Moselle C. McLendon, late of said county, deceased, said Ehrlich knowing that said cotton was rent cotton for rent of year he received same, to wit, for year 1916; that said two bales of cotton were received by the said Ehrlich and should be credited on said indebtedness due on this note, to wit: one bale weighing four hundred seventy-eight pounds, at 18 cents per pound, making a total of eighty-six and 04/100 dollars; and one bale weighing five hundred pounds, at 18 cents per pound, making a total amount paid on said note by Mrs. Mary E. Stacer, adm’x, as aforesaid, a total sum of one hundred seventy six and 04/Í00 dollars, said payments being made on dates unknown to this defendant, said cotton being delivered to the said Ehrlich by one James Stephens, a tenant on the defendant’s place, and, therefore, this defendant is unable to set out the time and date of, and the place of said payment, as accurately as required by law; that said cotton was delivered to the said Ehrlich during the latter part of'1916, and in the town of Swainsboro by the said James Stephens.” Upon demurrer the court struck this plea. Held, that [95]*95the plea did not show that the cotton was delivered with direction that it be credited on the note, or that it was received as a credit on the note; nor does the plea set forth, with that definiteness required by law, the defense of payment. The court therefore did not err in sustaining the demurrer and in striking the plea.

Decided March 15, 1918.

Complaint; from city court of Swainsboro—Judge Kirkland. August 29, 1917.

F. H. Saffold, for plaintiff in error. T. N. Brown, eontra.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Jenhins, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 308, 22 Ga. App. 94, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stacer-v-ehrlich-gactapp-1918.