Wheeler v. Stapleton

27 S.E. 724, 99 Ga. 731, 1896 Ga. LEXIS 507
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 23, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 27 S.E. 724 (Wheeler v. Stapleton) 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
Wheeler v. Stapleton, 27 S.E. 724, 99 Ga. 731, 1896 Ga. LEXIS 507 (Ga. 1896).

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

The facts are stated in the official report.

The court committed no error in overruling the certiorari. It does not appear from the evidence that Mrs. Stapleton, by a legal assignment of the account sued upon, was ever invested with the legal title thereto. Therefore, it was competent, if she saw proper to do so, to amend the suit by adding her husband as the plaintiff suing for her use. The account appears to have been contracted in the first instance by the defendant with George Stapleton. The amendment allowed was equivalent to- an allegation that George Stapleton held the legal title to the chose in action, while Mrs. Stapleton held the beneficial interest. "Where one holding the beneficial interest in her own name brings an action, and the introduction of the person holding the legal title is necessary to the enforcement of the right of the person having the equitable interest, the declaration, under section 3486 of the code, may be amended by the insertion of the name of such person as suing for the use of the one holding the beneficial interest. In strict law, an action should be brought in the first instance in the name of the person holding the legal title to the thing in controversy, but under our system of amendment, as allowed by the section of the code above referred to, if the suit be [733]*733brought by tbe person beneficially interested, tbe defect may be cured by tbe introduction of tbe person bolding tbe legal title, as suing for tbe use of tbe person bolding tbe equitable interest. There does not appear to have been any evidence calling in question either tbe legal title of tbe plaintiff, or tbe beneficial interest of tbe usee; and there was, therefore, no error committed by tbe judge of tlie county court in rendering a judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Reserve Life Insurance v. Peavy
93 S.E.2d 580 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Posey v. Frost Motor Co.
65 S.E.2d 427 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Thompson-Starrett, Etc. v. Mason's Adm'rs
201 S.W.2d 876 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1946)
Franklin v. Mobley
36 S.E.2d 173 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
Sherrill v. Pace
30 S.E.2d 793 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Cutright v. National Union Fire Insurance
15 S.E.2d 540 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Kohn v. Colonial Hill Co.
144 S.E. 33 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance v. Jewell-Loudermilk Co.
137 S.E. 286 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
American Surety Co. v. County of Bibb
134 S.E. 100 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Simon v. Mechanics Insurance
121 S.E. 342 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Madison Supply & Hardware Co. v. Sidwell
93 S.E. 117 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Thrift Bros. v. Baker
87 S.E. 676 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 S.E. 724, 99 Ga. 731, 1896 Ga. LEXIS 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-stapleton-ga-1896.