Bower v. Douglass
| Decision Date | 30 June 1858 |
| Citation | 25 Ga. 714 |
| Parties | Isaac E. Bower, plaintiff in error. vs. Thomas L. Douglass,adm'r., defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Complaint from Randolph county. Tried before Judge Kiddoo, May Term, 1858.
Kirksey and Bower were partners, and after they had dissolved, Kirksey converted an open account against the firm into a liquidated demand, by signing the name of the firm under seal to a note in favor of Hendrick & Hungerford. This note fell into the possession and control of Hendrick, who sued Kirksey and Bower upon it.
Upon the trial, defendant's counsel moved to dismiss said cause as to Bower, on the ground that it appeared, from the declaration that the instrument sued on was under seal, and executed and delivered by only one member, in the name of the firm.
Which motion was overruled, and defendant, Bower, excepted.
Thereupon plaintiff put Kirksey on the stand, who testified that he and Bower had been partners, and that he executed and delivered the instrument sued on at the time it bore date, and that Bower was not present or assenting; that they dissolved partnership in the latter part of 1851. The note sued on bore date April 6th, 1853. That after dissolution with Bower, he went into partnership with Marlin before he made this note, and continued, under the new firm, to trade with Hendrick, and that this note was given in set-dement between the old firm of Kirksey & Bower, and of Hendrick and Hungerford.
Cross-examined. He stated that at the time of the making of the note, Kirksey and Bower owed Hendrick & Hungerford nothing; that they owed them—K. and B.—upon a fair settlement, and that the balance was struck in favor of Hendrick and Hungerford by mistake, and said note given for it.
Plaintiff moved to strike out what Kirksey had said on cross-examination, to which defendant objected. The Court sustained the motion, and defendant excepted. Defendant moved the Court to be allowed to amend and plead the amount due to Kirksey & Bower by Hendrick & Hungerford in off-set. Which the Court refused, and defendant excepted.
Defendant introduced Eugenius Douglas, who testified that he, as agent of Hendrick, to whom the assets of Hendrick and Hungerford had been turned over after dissolution, took the note which Kirksey made and delivered, and he knew the firm of Kirksey & Bower had been dissolved.
Breagan swore that the old firm of defendants was dissolved in December, 1851, and it was advertised and posted about Cuthbert; and Hendrick lived in and about Cuthbert all that time, and must have known it.
Defendants then requested the Court to charge the jury, in writing:
"That after dissolution, one partner can not, by his separate acknowledgment, convert an open account into a liquidated demand so as to charge his former partner:
That after dissolution, one partner can not, by his separate acknowledgment, convert an open account into a liquidated demand, so as to charge his former partner with interest:
That after dissolution, one partner can not bind his former partner by a new contract, even though it be for an amount due by the partners before dissolution:
That after dissolution, one partner has no authority, fromthe mere fact that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. Yearty
...to the issues made by the pleadings, and unless it bears some reasonable relation to these issues, it ought not to be admitted. Bower v. Douglass, 25 Ga. 714(2); Peagler v. Davis, 143 Ga. 11, 16(5), 84 S.E. 59; Hawkins v. Hodges, 213 Ga. 837, 841(3), 102 S.E.2d 16; Kelly v. Malone, 5 Ga.App......
-
Lanier v. Lee
...242. It is error to admit over objection evidence which bears no reasonable relation to the issues made by the pleadings. Bower v. Douglass, 25 Ga. 714, 716(2); Peaglar v. Davis, 143 Ga. 11, 16(5), 84 S.E. 59; McGriff v. McGriff, 154 Ga. 560, 567(3), 115 S.E. 21; Hawkins v. Hodges, 213 Ga. ......
-
Hawkins v. Hodges
...143 Ga. 11(5), 84 S.E. 59, 60. 'Evidence ought not to be admitted unless it be applicable to some issue made in the pleadings.' Bower v. Douglass, 25 Ga. 714(2). Such evidence, the effect of which was to accuse the propounder of substituting pages with different provisions for pages in the ......
-
Payne v. Hightower
... ... not be granted unless every material fact on which the motion ... is founded is apparent in the petition (Bower v ... Douglass, 25 Ga. 714(1), yet there is no deviation from ... this rule in dismissing a petition on written motion ... specifically [198 Ga ... ...