Thomas v. Bloodworth

160 S.E. 709, 44 Ga. App. 44, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 592
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedAugust 27, 1931
Docket20965
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 160 S.E. 709 (Thomas v. Bloodworth) 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
Thomas v. Bloodworth, 160 S.E. 709, 44 Ga. App. 44, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinions

Stephens, J.

1. A motion to set aside a judgment, on the ground that a confession of judgment on which the judgment was rendered was obtained by fraud, failed to show such, fraud as would authorize the setting aside Of the judgment, where the only alleged fraud consisted, not in the procurement of the execution of the document that constituted the confession of judgment, but in the suit, itself, which was one to recover for the defendant’s conversion of money assigned to the plaintiff under a salary assignment, as having been based upon fraudulent transactions, such as that the assignment was made after the date of the alleged conversion, that the transaction was a loan, that the plaintiff had not credited the defendant with payments made upon the indebtedness, and that no copy of the assignment was attached as an exhibit to the petition, and also in the plaintiff’s representing to the court as true the facts alleged in the petition.

2. Matters purely defensive and going in denial of the plaintiff’s right to recover do not afford grounds to set aside a judgment. It is therefore no ground for the defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment against him that the indebtedness sued on was discharged by bankruptcy.

3. “No confession of judgment shall be entered up . . unless the cause has been regularly sued out and docketed as in other cases.” Civil Code (1910), § 5954. An allegation, in a motion to set aside a judgment rendered on a confession of judgment, that “at the time said confession was entered” the suit had not been docketed as provided in section 5954 of the Civil Code of 1910, constitutes ground for setting aside the judgment.

4. The affidavit to the petition for certiorari met the requirements of section 5184 of the Civil Code (1910).

[45]*45Decided August 27, 1931. Adhered to on rehearing, October 3, 1931. E. F. Goodrum, J. L. B. Boyd, V. K. Meador, for plaintiff. L. U. Bloodworth, B. B. Feagin, B. B. Jackson, for defendant.

5. The dwmuTcr Ui (he defendant's motion to set aside the judgment was improperly sustained, and the judge oí the superior court erred in refusing to sanction the defendant’s petition for certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

J enlcins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Related

Deborah Gonzalez v. Jarrod Miller
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2024
Bank South, N.A. v. Howard
444 S.E.2d 799 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1994)
R. H. Macey & Co. v. Chancey
157 S.E.2d 758 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
LANGDALE COMPANY v. Day
153 S.E.2d 671 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Stefanick v. Ouellette
104 S.E.2d 156 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
DAVISON-PAXON COMPANY v. Burkart
88 S.E.2d 39 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Cocke v. Truslow
86 S.E.2d 686 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Morris v. Morris
61 S.E.2d 156 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Nolan v. Southland Loan & Investment Co.
169 S.E. 370 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Henry & Co. v. Johnson
173 S.E. 659 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Whitley v. Southern Wholesale Corp.
164 S.E. 903 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 S.E. 709, 44 Ga. App. 44, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-bloodworth-gactapp-1931.