Wimberly v. Ocmulgee Guano Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wimberly v. Ocmulgee Guano Co.

94 S.E. 288, 21 Ga. App. 270, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 551

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1917

Docket8558

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 288 (Wimberly v. Ocmulgee Guano Co.) 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

Wimberly v. Ocmulgee Guano Co., 94 S.E. 288, 21 Ga. App. 270, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

In DeLamater v. Martin, supra, Mr. Justice Candler says: “At the time of bringing -the suit the plaintiff had not given the notice required by the act of 1900, and therefore he could in no event have recovered attorney’s fees in this action. It is clear that, under the ruling in the case last cited [Pickett v. Smith, 95 Ga. 757, 22 S. E. 669], he had the right to sue for the principal debt alone. It is true that in the summons first issued he apparently sued for an amount beyond the jurisdiction of the justice’s court, but as a matter of fact, not having given the requisite notice of his intention to sue for that amount, he in reality sued for less, and his suit was within the jurisdiction of the justice’s court.” In the case of Godfree v. Brooks, supra, Mr. Justice ' Atkinson, in discussing the DeLamater case, says: “In that ease the question was as to the right of the plaintiff to amend by alleging an omission to give the notice, the court holding that, with the amendment in, the court had jurisdiction. We go one step further and hold that, because the condition was precedent, the court had jurisdiction without amendment.” In the instant ease, although the summons apparently included a specific claim for attorney’s fees, still, since the condition precedent for their recovery is not made to appear, the suit must be taken as in fact embracing no such claim, and the entering up of a void judgment for the fees which were not sued for, in reality and in a legal sense, would not affect the validity of the judgment had for the amount of principal and interest sued for and within the jurisdiction of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Jenkins, J.

In DeLamater v. Martin, supra, Mr. Justice Candler says: “At the time of bringing -the suit the plaintiff had not given the notice required by the act of 1900, and therefore he could in no event have recovered attorney’s fees in this action. It is clear that, under the ruling in the case last cited [Pickett v. Smith, 95 Ga. 757, 22 S. E. 669], he had the right to sue for the principal debt alone. It is true that in the summons first issued he apparently sued for an amount beyond the jurisdiction of the justice’s court, but as a matter of fact, not having given the requisite notice of his intention to sue for that amount, he in reality sued for less, and his suit was within the jurisdiction of the justice’s court.” In the case of Godfree v. Brooks, supra, Mr. Justice ' Atkinson, in discussing the DeLamater case, says: “In that ease the question was as to the right of the plaintiff to amend by alleging an omission to give the notice, the court holding that, with the amendment in, the court had jurisdiction. We go one step further and hold that, because the condition was precedent, the court had jurisdiction without amendment.” In the instant ease, although the summons apparently included a specific claim for attorney’s fees, still, since the condition precedent for their recovery is not made to appear, the suit must be taken as in fact embracing no such claim, and the entering up of a void judgment for the fees which were not sued for, in reality and in a legal sense, would not affect the validity of the judgment had for the amount of principal and interest sued for and within the jurisdiction of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 288, 21 Ga. App. 270, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wimberly-v-ocmulgee-guano-co-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack