J. H. Lovejoy & Co. v. Chisolm
Supreme Court of Georgia
Pleading. Gaming debt. Before Judge Hopkins. Fulton Superior Court. April Term, 1871. Chisolm sued Lovejoy and his partner upon their firm note, payable to him, for $945 and for $122, the value of a bale of cotton, which he had stored with them, as warehouse-men, which they had refused to deliver on demand. Love-joy having been adjudged a bankrupt, the cause was discontinued as to him.
Read the full summary
Pleading. Gaming debt. Before Judge Hopkins. Fulton Superior Court. April Term, 1871. Chisolm sued Lovejoy and his partner upon their firm note, payable to him, for $945 and for $122, the value of a bale of cotton, which he had stored with them, as warehouse-men, which they had refused to deliver on demand. Love-joy having been adjudged a bankrupt, the cause was discontinued as to him. His partner pleaded non assumpsit, that he did not sign said note, nor authorize any one to do so for him, that Lovejoy made the note without his knowledge or consent, in a transaction wholly foreign to the…
1Opinion of the Court
McCay, Judge.
Our law is very liberal on the subject of pleading. Still, the statute requires both the plaintiff and defendant, the one by his declaration and the other by his plea, clearly to set forth the grounds of the suit and of the defense. And this rule is of the greater importance, now that the pleas are required to be under oath. We have never yet laid down a limit to the extent to which a jury may go in settling, by their verdict, the legal and equitable rights of the parties in a suit at law. But, for the very reason that the jury has such powers, it is the more important that the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- LaRoche v. FalligantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
- Simon v. Myers & MarcusSupreme Court of Georgia · 1881