Van Pelt v. Home Building & Loan Ass'n

13 S.E. 574, 87 Ga. 370, 1891 Ga. LEXIS 169
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 13, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 13 S.E. 574 (Van Pelt v. Home Building & Loan Ass'n) 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
Van Pelt v. Home Building & Loan Ass'n, 13 S.E. 574, 87 Ga. 370, 1891 Ga. LEXIS 169 (Ga. 1891).

Opinion

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

1. The exceptions to the auditor’s report were overruled on March 25th. No exception was entered pendente lite. On April 1st thereafter, the case came on for final hearing and trial, and the trial terminated on [373]*373that day in a final judgment for the plaintiff below. The bill of exceptions was certified on the 31st of May, which was within sixty days after the trial and judgment, but was more than sixty days after the exceptions to the auditor’s report were overruled. The bill of exceptions was too late to reach any alleged error committed by the court in overruling the exceptions. In order to preserve the right to have that decision reviewed, it was necessary that exceptions should have been entered pendente lite, under section 4250 of the code. City of Waycross v. Youmans, 85 Ga. 708. The longest time allowed by the statute for signing a bill of exceptions is sixty days from the date of the decision complained of. Code, §4252.

2. The court erred in striking the amended pleas filed by the defendant below on the day of the trial. If the facts set forth in these pleas be true, the association was virtually dissolved pending the suit. It not only had transferred and assigned in writing the subject-matter of the present action, but had virtually gone out of existence. If it had paid off and satisfied all its stockholders and ceased to transact business, it was incapable of further prosecuting a pending action founded upon a bond which it transferred and assigned after the action, was brought. It might admit of some question, indeed very considerable question under the authorities, whether it could proceed to recover on a cause of action after parting with title both legal and equitable, although it had not parted with its own legal existence as well. Rut we are clear that, taking the matter of these pleas as true, the association could not prosecute this action or any other. Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Turner v. Rush Medical College
537 N.E.2d 890 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1989)
Swindle v. Matheney
183 S.E. 625 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Bank of LaGrange v. Cotter
28 S.E. 644 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)
Merritt v. Gate City National Bank
38 L.R.A. 749 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)
Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Van Pelt
21 S.E. 606 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1894)
Lester v. Georgia, Car. & Northern Railway Co.
17 S.E. 113 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 S.E. 574, 87 Ga. 370, 1891 Ga. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-pelt-v-home-building-loan-assn-ga-1891.