Colding v. Williamson
Supreme Court of Georgia
Actions. Statute of Limitations. Before Judge Cars-well. Scriven Superior Court. May Term, 1883. Colding brought suit against Williamson in 1882. The body of the declaration and the exhibits attached thereto were as follows: “The petition of Silas M. Colding respectfully showeth that heretofore, to wit, on the 27th day of March, 1873, and before that time, your petitioner and James S. Turner, as copartners using the firm name and style of Colding & Turner, were cotton…
Read the full summary
Actions. Statute of Limitations. Before Judge Cars-well. Scriven Superior Court. May Term, 1883. Colding brought suit against Williamson in 1882. The body of the declaration and the exhibits attached thereto were as follows: “The petition of Silas M. Colding respectfully showeth that heretofore, to wit, on the 27th day of March, 1873, and before that time, your petitioner and James S. Turner, as copartners using the firm name and style of Colding & Turner, were cotton factors and general commission merchants, doing business in the city of Savannah, of said state. That on the day and year…
1Opinion of the Court
Jackson, Chief Justice.
1. It will be seen from the report of the declaration, and exhibits, which make a part of it, that the suit is brought to recover the balance of advances made in 1873, and not upon the promissory note nor for breach of covenant for not furnishing cotton wherewith to pay for those advances. It is therefore the balance of an open account made in 1873, and as it was not brought until 1882, the account is most clearly barred by the statute of limitations.
Even had a part of the $400.00 note been unpaid, it *92would have been barred, because the note is not a sealed instrument…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sumner v. SumnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Stansell v. CorleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
- Small v. CohenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897