Valdosta Guano Co. v. Green

101 S.E. 538, 149 Ga. 610, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 345
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 11, 1919·No. No. 1453·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

The discharge in bankruptcy granted subsequently to the rendition of a verdict upon a debt provable in bankruptcy, of -which discharge the judgment creditors had due notice in the proceedings in bankruptcy, operated as a discharge from the debt, although the judgment creditors did not take a judgment -within the four days prescribed for the entering of judgments upon verdicts, but had a judgment nunc pro tunc entered subsequently to the grant of the discharge in bankruptcy. Relatively to the discharge in bankruptcy such a nunc pro tunc judgment related back to the date within which such judgment would regularly have been entered upon the verdict in the case. See Boynton v, Ball, 121 U. S. 457 (7 Sup. Ct. 981, 30 L. ed. 985). Applying this ruling to the facts of this case, the judge did not err in directing a verdict for the defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent.

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

Valdosta Guano Co. v. Green, 101 S.E. 538, 149 Ga. 610, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 345 (Ga. 1919).

101 S.E. 538 (Valdosta Guano Co. v. Green) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Byrne v. Stewart
30 S.W.2d 395 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Miller v. Equitable Credit Co.
133 S.E. 750 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Morris Fertilizer Co. v. White, McCurdy & Co.
122 S.E. 692 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Joyner v. Bank of Menlo
120 S.E. 4 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Walker Bros. v. Capital City Grocery Co.
112 S.E. 157 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)