Gilmore v. Murphy
Supreme Court of Georgia
Pleadings. New trial. Before Judge Tompkins. Chat-ham Superior Court. May Term, 1875. One of the grounds of the motion for new trial was that of newly discovered evidence, to the effect that Murphy and Clark had each told one Mills, in July, 1873, that the latter had no interest in the business of Murphy & Clark, but simply received wages as an employee. The mortgage sought to be foreclosed was executed on January 26th, 1871. The usual supporting affidavits were attached.
Read the full summary
Pleadings. New trial. Before Judge Tompkins. Chat-ham Superior Court. May Term, 1875. One of the grounds of the motion for new trial was that of newly discovered evidence, to the effect that Murphy and Clark had each told one Mills, in July, 1873, that the latter had no interest in the business of Murphy & Clark, but simply received wages as an employee. The mortgage sought to be foreclosed was executed on January 26th, 1871. The usual supporting affidavits were attached. For the remaining facts, see the decision.
1Opinion of the Court
Warner, Chief Justice.
C. Murphy, the plaintiff in the court below, petitioned for the foreclosure of a mortgage executed by A. Gilmore, and claimed that $> 1,680 00, besides interest, etc.,“was due. Gilmore filed, first, a plea of partial paymeut, which was allowed. Plaintiff moved to strike all that part of defendant’s plea which followed the first plea of partial payment. The court, after argument, sustained the motion. The plea so stricken alleged that Murphy, in consideration that Gilmore would agree to do for the firm of Murphy & Clark, of which Murphy was a member, the ornamental and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Jenkins v. German Lutheran CongregationSupreme Court of Georgia · 1877
- Fowler v. Hate City National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891