TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Johnson v. Branan

ADAMS & JOHNSON v. BRANAN

Johnson v. Branan, 48 S.E. 128 (Ga. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 12, 1904
Judges
Evans
Citations
48 S.E. 128120 Ga. 5301904 Ga. LEXIS 630
Headnotes
1. A plea that the maturity of the account sued on had been extended by the plaintiff to a time subsequent to the institution of the suit, and that the suit was prematurely brought, is a plea in abatement. Horne v. Rodgers, 103 Ga. 649; Goodrich v. Atlanta Assn., 96 Ga. 803 ; Alexander v. State, 56^ Ga. 478 (1). 2. A plea in abatement is a dilatory plea, and must be filed at the first term, unless failure to do so is shown to be the result of unavoidable cause. Civil Code, §§ 4128, 5058. 3. Where no excuse is shown for the delay, it is too late to file such a plea in abatement in the superior court on the appeal of a case from the county court; and the court erred in overruling the motion to strike the plea in abatement on the ground that it was filed too late. Berry v. Cooper, 28 Ga. 643 ; Horne v. Rodgers, 103 Ga. 649.
Summary
Complaint. Before Judge Holden. Wilkinson superior court. October 6, 1903.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Evans

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Evans, J.

This was a suit upon an open account, brought in the county court, and filed in that court on November 13, 1902. The defendant denied the alleged indebtedness,- and, on an appeal to the superior court from the judgment of the county court, offered an amendment, which was allowed, in which he set up as an additional defense that the plaintiff had extended the maturity of the account until October 1, 1902. Both parties, in the court below and also in this court, treated the time mentioned in the plea as that to which .payment had been extended as though it were a date subsequent to the bringing of the suit, and we have accord *531 ingly passed upon the questions raised in the record as to the propriety of allowing this plea to be filed, as appears from the principles enunciated in the headnotes. In point of fact, the special plea alleges that the maturity of the account was extended to October 1, 1902, a date prior to the institution of the suit. If the date named in the plea be the true date to which payment of the account had been extended, the suit was brought after that time. In either event the judgment of the court below was wrong, and the verdict is accordingly set aside and a new trial ordered. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1929: 11938: 11962: 11966: 119292026peak 1929 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kent v. First National Bank196 S.E. 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938)
  2. Richmond County v. Sibert125 S.E.2d 129 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962)
  3. Garrison v. McGuire152 S.E.2d 624 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
  4. Shorter v. State166 N.E. 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929)

Most recent

  1. Garrison v. McGuire152 S.E.2d 624 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
  2. Richmond County v. Sibert125 S.E.2d 129 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962)
  3. Kent v. First National Bank196 S.E. 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938)
  4. Shorter v. State166 N.E. 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list