Wight v. Merchants & Planters Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wight v. Merchants & Planters Bank

121 S.E. 695, 31 Ga. App. 560, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 55

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 17, 1924

Docket14773

StatusPublished

This text of 121 S.E. 695 (Wight v. Merchants & Planters Bank) 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

Wight v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 121 S.E. 695, 31 Ga. App. 560, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 55 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. By exceptions pendente lite the plaintiff in error complains that the court erred in striking an amendment to the original plea. Counsel for the plaintiff in error in his brief says: “The amendment merely stated the defendant’s defense in a different way,” and “it is respectfully submitted that the amendment set up practically the same defense as is set up in the defendant’s original answer.” These statements being true, if it was error to strike the amendment it worked no injury to the defendant.

2. The court did not err in its rulings upon the admissibility of evidence.

3. The court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that when the note sued upon was executed it was agreed between the plaintiff bank and defendant that in the event Duncan cut the timber, the collections for the same should be made through the bank, “and from such collections plaintiff would pay the note sued on.” This was an affirmative defense, and the evidence fails to sustain it.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. By exceptions pendente lite the plaintiff in error complains that the court erred in striking an amendment to the original plea. Counsel for the plaintiff in error in his brief says: “The amendment merely stated the defendant’s defense in a different way,” and “it is respectfully submitted that the amendment set up practically the same defense as is set up in the defendant’s original answer.” These statements being true, if it was error to strike the amendment it worked no injury to the defendant.

2. The court did not err in its rulings upon the admissibility of evidence.

3. The court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that when the note sued upon was executed it was agreed between the plaintiff bank and defendant that in the event Duncan cut the timber, the collections for the same should be made through the bank, “and from such collections plaintiff would pay the note sued on.” This was an affirmative defense, and the evidence fails to sustain it.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 695, 31 Ga. App. 560, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wight-v-merchants-planters-bank-gactapp-1924.