Anderson v. Fulton County Home Builders
| Decision Date | 14 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 498.) |
| Citation | 92 S.E. 934,147 Ga. 104 |
| Parties | ANDERSON. v. FULTON COUNTY HOME BUILDERS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; W. D. Ellis, Judge.
Suit by the Fulton County Home Builders against Mrs. Anna E. Ragsdale, in which N. C. Ragsdale was made a party defendant. Judgment against defendant Mrs. Anna E. Ragsdale; new trial granted as to defendant N. C. Ragsdale, and refused as to Mrs. Ragsdale, and J. T. Anderson, administrator, brings error. Affirmed.
Fulton County Home Builders, a corporation, brought suit against Mrs. Anna E. Ragsdale, alleging that the defendant was indebted to petitioner on three series of notes described in the petition. These notes contained a clause accelerating maturity upon default in the payment of any one note for a longer time than 30 days after maturity. The default had occurred, and petitioner elected to treat all the notes due and gave the statutory notice required to collect attorney's fees. All the notes were secured by three security deeds to separate parcels of land, one of which deeds was signed by N. C. Ragsdale, who, it was alleged, "should be made a party to this suit." One of the parcels of land was alleged to be subject to an older security deed to one King. The various properties were alleged to be insufficient to pay the debt; and the prayer was for judg ment against the defendant, for a receivership and a sale of the property by the receiver, and for the application of the proceeds to the payment of petitioner's debt. An order was taken making N. C. Ragsdale a party, and directing that a copy of the petition and order be served upon him. The defendants filed their respective demurrers and answers praying equitable relief. N. C. Ragsdale also filed a traverse to the sheriff's return of service upon him. The prayers for receiver and for sale of the property were stricken on motion of the plaintiff. The case was put upon the trial calendar, where it was sounded more than once, and no response was made by the defendants or their attorneys. The case was called for trial in its regular order, and no appearance was made by the defendants or their counsel, nor was any request made to hear the traverse and the demurrers. The plaintiff introduced evidence, at the conclusion of which the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff against Mrs. Anna E. Ragsdale, for a stated amount of principal, interest, and attorney's fees, declaring also that the plaintiffs have a special lien upon the property described in the petition as having been conveyed as security for the debt. The defendants made a motion for a new trial, on the ground that it was erroneous for the court to allow the plaintiff to proceed to trial without first disposing of the demurrers and the traverse; and also because of the insufficiency of the evidence. A new trial was granted as to N. C. Ragsdale, and refused as to Mrs. Ragsdale. She excepted.
J. S. James and J. R. Bedgood, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
H. H. Turner, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
EVANS, P. J. (after stating the facts as above). [1] 1. The statute requires that demurrers, pleas, and answers shall be disposed of in the order named. Civ. Code 1910, § 5630; Smith v. Hornsby, 70 Ga. 552. The demurrers were properly filed, and should have been disposed of before the case was taken up on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanfield v. Brewton, 26683
...neglected either to appear for trial or notify his client is not sufficient ground to authorize a new trial. Anderson v. Fulton County Home Builders, 147 Ga. 104(2), 92 S.E. 934; Caylor v. Wheat, 210 Ga. 429(2), 80 S.E.2d The only defense which the appellant asserted to the injunctive actio......
-
Prudential Timber & Farm Co. v. Collins
...a ruling on demurrers unless the demurrers were not meritorious." Id. at 627(2a), 133 S.E.2d at 898. Accord: Anderson v. Fulton County Home Builders, 147 Ga. 104(1), 92 S.E. 934; Porter v. Parker, 159 Ga. 556(1), 126 S.E. 381. However, although a demurrer should have been determined before ......
-
Haralson County Economic Development Corp. v. Hammock
...neglected either to appear for trial or notify his client is not sufficient ground to authorize a new trial. Anderson v. Fulton County Home Builders, 147 Ga. 104(2), 92 S.E. 934; Caylor v. Wheat, 210 Ga. 429(2), 80 S.E.2d 688.' Stanfield v. Brewton, 228 Ga. 92, 97, 184 S.E.2d 352, 356. "Whe......
-
Aycock v. Royal Ins. Co
...Co., 137 Ga. 111, 72 S. E. 906; Brown Realty Co. v. Joel Hunter Co., 44 Ga. App. 146 (1), 160 S. E. 681; Anderson v. Fulton County Home Builders, 147 Ga. 104 (1), 92 S. E. 934. Judgments affirmed. STEPHENS and SUTTON, JJ., ...