Kirven & Co. v. Thornton
Supreme Court of Georgia
Complaint. Before Judge Willis. City court of Columbus-July term, 1899.
1Opinion of the CourtSimmons, C. J.
1. A written acknowledgment of indebtedness, which does not specify or plainly refer to the particular demand or cause of action to he renewed or created by it, is not sufficient to take the case out of the statute of limitations where the contract or cause of action sued on is barred. Gartrell v. Linn, 79 Ga. 700, and cases there cited; Paille v. Plant, 109 Ga. 247.
2. Whether there were mutual accounts or dealings between the parties-so as to relieve the bar of the statute was a question of fact for the jury. This question haying been submitted to the jury, and they having found against the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gunn v. GunnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
- Gartrell v. LinnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
- Paille v. PlantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pendley v. PowersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Wagener v. SteeleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Hughes v. TreadawaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Bank of Blakely v. BuchannonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
- Duke v. LynchCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.