« AnteriorContinuar »
Sale vs. Wingfield, adm', . 622 | State adv. Estes, .
30 Salter et al. vs. Smith, governor, 244 State adv. Estes,
131 Salter vs. Taylor, . 310 State adv. Fraser, .
325 Sanford vs. Sanford, . 527 State adv. Jones,
625 Saulsbury, Respess & Co. vs. Mc- State adv. Lark, .
435 Kellar, . 322 State adv. McElreath,
562 Savannah and Ch. R. R. Co. vs. State adv. McMath,
303 C. R. R. and B. Co.,
558 State adv. Mitchell, Savannah, Grif. and N. AI. R. R. State adv. Niles,
557 Co. vs. The State, . 557 State adv. Nolan,
521 Sawyer vs. Sledge, 152 State adv. O'Connell,
191 Schuster, Son & Co. vs. Ferst & State adv. O'Connell,
296 Company et al.,. . 546 State adv. O'Shields,
696 Scroggins vs. The State, 380 State adv. Pearson,
659 Sedgwick, assignee, vs. Gerding, 264 State adv. Roberts,
220 Seligman et al., trustees, vs. Ferst State adv. Ross,
192 & Company et al.,. .
546 State adv. Savannah, Griffin and Shaw adv. Norris,.
N. Ala. R. R. Company, 557 Shehee adv. Fry, . 208 State adv. Scroggins,
380 Shields vs. Mayor, etc., of Savan- State adv. Stafford, nah,
150 State adv. Thompson, Simmons adr. Ware, . 94 State adv. Thurmond,
598 Simmons vs. Mosely, adm'r, 35 State adv. Thurmond,
600 Sims vs. Kidd et al.,. . 626 State adv. Tilley, .
557 Sims vs. Lester et al., adm’rs,. 620 State adv. Williams,
391 Sledge adv. Sawyer,. 152 State adv. Wilson,
324 Smith adv. Gwinn,
145 Stephens vs. Tucker, adm'r, . 543 Smith et al. adv. ordinary, 15 Stevens et al. adv. Guilmartin & Smith, gov'r, adv. McNeil et al., 313 Co. et al., .
203 Smith, gov'r, adv. Salter et al., . 244 Stewart, adm'r, vs. Parker, . 656 Smith, Son & Bro. vs. Fouche et Stewart, adm’r, vs. Barrow, ex'r, 664 al., .
120 Story et al. vs. Flournoy, McSmith vs. Wright,
218 Gehee & Co.,. . Southern Express Company adv. Story vs. Kemp et al.,
276 Cohen & Menko, . 558 Stovall vs. Hairston, .
9 Southern Por. M'i'g Co. et al. Sutherlin adv. Und'writ's' Ag'cy, 266
adv. Nat. Bank of Augusta, Southwestern R. R. Co. adv. Mil
T ler, adm'r,
143 Southwestern R. R. Comp'y adv. Taylor adv. Morgan,
224 Lovette, adm'r, 143 Taylor adv. Salter,
310 Speer, agent, adv. Varnell, agent, Thompson, adm'r, et al. adv. et al., .
431 Speer vs. Tinsley et al., 89 Thompson vs. The State, .
47 Spencer et al. vs. Georgia R. R. Thompson vs. Georgia R. R. and and B. Company, : :
B. Company, :,: Sprague Mowing Machine Co. Thornton vs. Wilson,
607 adv. Wilson & Co., .
672 Thurmond vs. The State,. Stafford vs. The State, . 591 Thurmond vs. The State, 600 State adv. Atlantic and Gulf R. Tilley vs. The State,
557 R. Company,
312 Tinsley et al. adv. Speer,. 89 State adv. Barclay,
179 Trammell adv. Roberts et ux., . 383 State adv. Bard, .
319 | Tucker, adm'r, adv. Stephens, . 543 State adv. Bird,. .
317 Turner et al., adm’rs, vs. Linam, 253 State adv. Brown,. .
169 Tweedell adv. Martin, adm'r, • 559 State adv. Cory,
236 State adv. Daniel,.
U State adv. Dobbs,.
272 State adv. Earp,
136 | Underwood et al. adv. Ponce et al., 601
Underwriters' Agency vs. Suther- Wheeler, sheriff, vs. Walker, 256
Whitfield adv. Pullen, adm'x, 174 Vandiver adv. Kennedy & Mor- Whittle vs. Webster,
171 Wicker vs. Woods & Co., VanDyke vs. Martin et al., 466 Wiece vs. Marbut et al., Varnell, agent, et al. vs. Speer, Williams vs. Harkins, .
172 agent, 132 Williams vs. The State, .
391 Varner & Ellington adv. Radcliffe Wilson & Co. vs. Sprague Mow& Lamb,. . 427 ing Machine Co., .
672 Varner et al. vs. Varner et al., 573 Wilson adv. Thornton,. 607 Vaughan adv. Murphy, . 361 Wilson vs. Bank of Louisiana et
98 W Wilson vs. The State, .
Wimberly adv. Board of CommisWadley, Jones & Co. vs. Jones, . 329 ers Burke county, . .
570 Walker adv. Wheeler, sheriff, 256 | Wimberly vs. Bryan,.
198 Walker et al., rec'rs, adv. Hen. Wingfield adm’r, adv. Sale,. 622 derson, 481 Womack adv. Ruker, .
399 Walker, ex'r, adv. Gause, 129 Woods & Co. adv. Wicker,. 647 Walters adv. Brady et al., . 25 Worrill adv. Booker, .
332 Ware vs. Simmons,
94 Wright, adm'r, vs. Bessman, 187 Warren adv. Clark, adm'r, 575 Wright, adm'r,r's. Zitrouer, adm'r, 85 Webster adv. Whittle,.. 180 Wright adv. Smith, .
218 Webster et al. vs. Thompson, ad- Wynne adv. Burton,. ministrator, et al., .
431 Wells adv. Blount,
z Western and Atlantic R. R. Co. adv. Johnson,
133 Zitrouer, adm'r, adv. Wright, Western and Atlantic R. R. Co. adm'r,. . vs. Adams,..
CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED
upreme Court of Georgia,
JULY TERM, 1875.
PRESENT-HIRAM WARNER, CHIEF Justice.
D. STOVALL, plaintiff in error, vs. WILLIAM M. HAIRSTON,
defendant in error.
55 9 58 507
1. An agreement to settle an existing debt by promise to pay a part thereof,
is void, for want of consideration, unless some benefit accrues from the agreement to the creditor or detriment to the debtor, other than what
springs out of the original contract. 2. If the plaintiff delayed suit by reason of said promise until his original
claim was barred by the statute of limitations, then he suffered such detri
ment as would operate as a consideration for the promise. 3. The detriment sustained by the plaintiff, if relied upon as a consideration
for the contract sued on, should be distinctly alleged in the declaration and proved upon the trial,
Contracts. Consideration. Debtor and creditor. Pleadings. Before Judge BUCHANAN. Troup Superior Court. May Term, 1875.
Reported in the decision.
VOL. LV. 2.
Stovall vs. Hairston.
SPEER & SPEER, for plaintiff in error.
FERRELL & LONGLEY, by brief, for defendant.
WARNER, Chief Justice.
The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant to recover the sum of $200 00, with interest thereon, from February, 1869, which the defendant promised the plaintiff, in several letters written to him, that he would pay in settlement of two notes which the plaintiff held on the defendant, amounting to the sum of $390 00, besides interest, dated in 1861. The plaintiff, by letter, agreed to accept the defendant's proposition to pay the $200 00, with interest thereon from February, 1869, which the defendant, in letters written to the plaintiff, promised from time to time to do, the last letter being dated 10th of Mareh, 1871. When the plaintiff bad closed his evidence by reading the letters of the respective parties to each other, the defendant made a motion to non-suit the plaintiff, on the ground that there was no legal or valid consideration shown for the defendant's promise to pay the $200 00 to the plaintiff. The court sustained the motion, and the plaintiff excepted.
1. In Molyneaux vs. Collier, 13th Georgia Reports, 407, it was held that an agreement to settle an existing debt by promising to pay a part thereof, was void, for want of consideration, unless some advantage or benefit accrues to the creditor, or detriment to the debtor, from the agreement, other than what springs out of the original contract. Detriment to the creditor to whom the promise is made, is not included in the words of the decision in that case. But the 2740th section of the Code defines a valid consideration to support an agreement or contract to be, if any benefit accrues to him who makes the promise, or any injury to him who receives the promise.
2. Now, it is fairly inferable from the repeated promises made by the defendant, in his letters, to pay the plaintiff the
Jones vs. Parker.
$200 00, with interest thereon from February, 1869, and the plaintiff's replies to said promises, that he was induced thereby not to have instituted suit on the original notes until after the 1st of January, 1870, when the same would have been barred by the statute of limitations of 1869. Whether the plaintiff did institute suits on the original notes prior to the 1st of January, 1870, or whether he forbore to do so by reason of the defendant's repeated promises to pay the $ 200 00 with interest thereon, is not alleged in the plaintiff's declaration. If the plantiff did forbear to sue on the original notes in consequence of the defendant's repeated promises to pay the $200 in settlement thereof, until the same became barred by the act of 1869, (which we think may fairly be inferred from the correspondence between the parties,) then the plaintiff was injured by the defendant's promise to him which he has failed to perform, and such injury would constitute a valid consideration for the defendant's promise under the section of the Code before cited.
3. In view of the facts of this case as disclosed by the evidence in the record, we reverse the judgment of the court awarding the non-suit, with directions that the plaintiff amend his declaration, and distinctly aver the injury he has sustained in consequence of the defendant's promise, in order that he may distinctly prove the same on the trial, and not leave that material fact to be inferred from the correspondence of the parties read in evidence. The plaintiff should allege a legal and valid cause of action in his declaration before he is entitled to have the judgment of the court thereon in his favor.
Let the judgment of the court below be reversed.
JOSEPH T. JONES, plaintiff in error, vs. WILLIAM C. PAR
KER, defendant in error. 1. A levy on land made in 1869, had not become too stale to be enforced in
1875, especially where an issue of illegality or a claim had been pending during most of the intermediate time.
11 56 445 57 417 59 789 59 830 60 501 60 503 69 728 69 313 79 116