Tennessee Chemical Co. v. George
Tennessee Chemical Company v. George
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Broyles, C. J.
1. “In a suit by the owner and holder of a promissory note against the maker, where the defendant had deposited certain personal property with the plaintiff as collateral security for the note sued on and the plaintiff has converted the property to his own use, the defendant can maintain a cross-action for the difference between the value of the converted property and the balance due by the defendant on the note, where it is not shown that the property has been converted into money.”
2. The above-stated ruling in this case was made by the Supreme Oourt (in answer to a certified question by this court) on January 15, 1926 ( 161 Ga. 563 , 131 S. E. 493 ), and disposes of the exception to the overruling of the general demurrer to the defendant’s answer.
3. Under the particular facts of the ease, conceding that the court erred in overruling some of the special demurrers to the answer, it appears with reasonable certainty that no injury resulted therefrom to the plaintiff in error; and such errors, therefore, do not require a new trial. Martin & Lanier Paint Co. v. Daniels, 27 Ga. App. 302 (3) ( 108 S. E. 246 ).
4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the amendment to the motion for a new trial shows no cause for a reversal of the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.