Legal Opinion
Stanfield v. Hursey
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided February 14, 1927No. 17222PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
1. Where, after incurring liability, the debtor becomes insane, this fact will not prevent the creditor from bringing suit, and therefore will not affect the operation of the statute of limitations against the debt. Scott v. Winningham, 79 Ga. 492 (4 S. E. 390); Foster v. Jones, 23 Ga. 168; Civil Code (1910), § 5858 (1); Elliott v. Keith, 102 Ga. 119 (29 S. E. 155); 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d ed.) 241; 37 C. J. 1026.
2. In order for the removal of a debtor from this State to suspend the operation of the statute of limitations, it must be accompanied by an intention to change his legal…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Doe ex. dem. Foster v. RoeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1857
- Elliott v. KeithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Scott v. WinninghamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- Weeks v. Reliance Fertilizer Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
- Jackson v. Southern Flour & Grain Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1917
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Foster v. FosterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
- Sorrells v. SorrellsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
- South v. MontoyaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2000
- Estate of PhillipsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Almond v. MobleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.