Hart v. Holly
Supreme Court of Georgia
Suit on note, in Marion Superior Court. Tried before Judge Worrell, February Term, 1855. This was an action brought under the Act of 1847, “ to simplify and curtail pleadings at law.” It was upon a note for $233 33, dated July 12th, 1838, and due 25th December next thereafter.
Read the full summary
Suit on note, in Marion Superior Court. Tried before Judge Worrell, February Term, 1855. This was an action brought under the Act of 1847, “ to simplify and curtail pleadings at law.” It was upon a note for $233 33, dated July 12th, 1838, and due 25th December next thereafter. There were, on the note, several receipts, dated, respectively, 2d February, 1839, May 7th, 1839, June 4tfy 1839, January 13th, 1840, and February 5th, 1853. The Court below decided that the plaintiffs could not recover in this form of action, upon this note; and this is the error assigned in this case. Another point…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Benning, J.
delivering the opinion.
[1.] The action in this case, was in the form authorized by the third section of the Act of 1847, “ to simplify and curtail pleadings at law” — a section which is in these words: “ The form of an action to recover money on a note, bill, bond, receipt, or written promise of any description, by adding a copy of which, with the endorsers names (if any) and credits, shall be appended,” &c. “maybe as follows, to wit:” (the form adopted in this case.)
One of the credits on the note was dated in 1853; a date which was within less than six years, next…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Stansell v. CorleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1889