Trimble v. Mims
Supreme Court of Georgia
Complaint on note. Before Judge Westmoreland. City court of Atlanta. September term, 1892. The note sued on was dated May 28, 1874; the declaration was filed December 7, 1891. It was alleged, that in the year 1874 the maker removed from Georgia and has ever since continued to reside out of the State. There was a verdict for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Complaint on note. Before Judge Westmoreland. City court of Atlanta. September term, 1892. The note sued on was dated May 28, 1874; the declaration was filed December 7, 1891. It was alleged, that in the year 1874 the maker removed from Georgia and has ever since continued to reside out of the State. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. A new trial was granted on the ground, that when defendant was offered as a witness to testify where he was domiciled when the note was executed, plaintiff (administratrix of the payee) objecting on the ground that the payee was dead, the eourt held…
1Opinion of the Court
Bleckley, Chief Justice.
If, when the note sued upon was executed, the maker resided out of this State, the statute of limitations would run in his favor from the maturity of the note, with no suspension on account of his non-residence within the State; but if he resided here when the note was executed and afterwards removed, his removal would suspend the statute until his return. This being the state of the law, it was a vital fact in the case as to where his residence was at the date of the note. Was the maker himself, the payee being dead and the action being brought by his personal…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Nugent v. WatkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Gomez v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Gormley v. McMillanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Mitchell v. WoodwardSuperior Court of Delaware · 1897