Fricks v. Miller
Supreme Court of Georgia
Constitutional Law. Before Judge Parrott. Gordon Superior Court. April .Term, 1870. The facts of this case are fully stated in the concurring opinion of Judge Warner, [q. v.]. The Court charged the jury the constitutional provision as to debts made to aid the rebellion, and said if the note were given in lieu of an old judgment, it was a novation 'and plaintiff should recover, but if it was agreed that defendant was to have the benefit of any subsequent legislation which…
Read the full summary
Constitutional Law. Before Judge Parrott. Gordon Superior Court. April .Term, 1870. The facts of this case are fully stated in the concurring opinion of Judge Warner, [q. v.]. The Court charged the jury the constitutional provision as to debts made to aid the rebellion, and said if the note were given in lieu of an old judgment, it was a novation 'and plaintiff should recover, but if it was agreed that defendant was to have the benefit of any subsequent legislation which might be made, the jury should find for the defendant, otherwise the defendant would be defrauded. (The evidence was, that…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—
BROWN, C. J.,
delivering the opinion.
The judgment against (Collins and the other officers was obtained in 1866, after the Courts of this State, recognized by the Government of the United States, had been opened, in which the .defendants 'would have been heard to set up the illegality of the consideration of the note. If they 'desired to defend on that ground, it was their duty to make the defence before (judgment. Having failed to do so, we think they are not now entitled to go behind the judgment to allege the illegality of the consideration of the contract, and that they could…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Union Mutual Ass'n v. CooperCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913