Williamson v. Wardlaw

46 Ga. 126
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 46 Ga. 126 (Williamson v. Wardlaw) 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
Williamson v. Wardlaw, 46 Ga. 126 (Ga. 1872).

Opinion

Warner, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff brought his action against the defendants on several promissory notes, as set forth in his declaration. The defendants pleaded the statute of limitations. The notes were dated 14th February, 1860, and due the 1st of January next thereafter. On the trial of the case the jury found a verdict for the defendants. A motion was made for a new trial, which was granted by the Court, and the defendants excepted. The fourth section of the Act of 1869 declares that all actions on promissory notes made prior to the 1st of June, 1865, not then barred, should be brought by the 1st of January next thereafter, or the right of the plaintiff, and all right of action for its enforcement should be forever barred. It was contended by the plaintiff that suit was commenced on these notes within time, but, under the decision of this Court, in Williamson vs. Wardlaw, 40 Georgia Reports, 702, there never was a suit upon them, that the former attempt to sue them and the proceedings had for that purpose was void, and the action on them must be considered as having been commenced for the first time on the 26th of September,-1870, the date of the commencement of the present action, and was, therefore, barred under the provisions of the Act of 1869. It was error in the Court to grant a new trial on the statement of facts contained in the record.

Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.

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

Related

Gunnells v. Seaboard Airline Railroad
204 S.E.2d 324 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Baldwin v. Happy Herman's, Inc.
177 S.E.2d 814 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Cutliffe v. Pryse
200 S.E. 124 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Talley v. Commercial Credit Co.
161 S.E. 832 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Taylor v. State
127 S.E. 652 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Brooks
107 S.E. 878 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Lamb v. Howard
102 S.E. 436 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Chapman v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
92 S.E. 1025 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Tuten v. Showalter
82 S.E. 154 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern Railway Co. v. Wilson
47 S.E. 366 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Southern Railway Co. v. Goodrum
42 S.E. 49 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Hamilton & Co. v. Phenix Insurance
36 S.E. 960 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
McClendon & Co. v. Hernando Phosphate Co.
28 S.E. 152 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 Ga. 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-wardlaw-ga-1872.