Donaldson v. Cothran
| Decision Date | 31 August 1878 |
| Citation | 60 Ga. 604 |
| Parties | Donaldson. v. Cothran, administrator, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Promissory notes. New trial. Before Judge Underwood.
Bartow Superior Court. January Term, 1878.
*Reported in the opinion.
W. T. Wofford; A. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.
Stansell & Wofford; Dabney & Fouche, for defendants, cited 27 Ga., 239; 55 Ib., 200; 50 Ib., 634, 722; 20 Ib., 568.
This was a suit on a promissory note against several defendants, by which they jointly and severally promised to pay the plaintiff $4,181.00. The jury found for the plaintiff $2,908.72, and the plaintiff moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was not large enough, and was against law, and unsupported by evidence, for the sum rendered in the verdict. The presiding judge overruled this motion and the plaintiff brings the case here for review.
The plea of defendants mainly relied upon was payment of the note, and some complaint was made that under the general allegation by one defendant that the note was paid, evidence was inadmissible to show payments made by other defendants, but no error is assigned upon this point, nor is it a ground set out in the motion for a new trial.
If it were, there is nothing in it; because if plaintiff got his money from any one or more of defendants, he would have no right to recover it out of the others. Those who had paid it might sue for contribution, but as to the payee the note would be dead.
So that the question is reduced to the point, is there evi-dence to sustain the verdict? That is mainly matter of calculation. Some payments were made on the note by some of the makers, and with the understanding that these payments should go when made to their pro rata share of the note, and their entire pro rata of principal and interest was paid off.
Counsel for plaintiff insists that these payments should be applied to interest alone; as the interest is not all paid *off yet, or not a great deal over it; while the defendants say that as it was agreed that these payments should go to the pro rata share of those who paid their share, they ought to be counted and calculated as principal as well as interest—that is, when made they extinguished interest of the share up to the time of payment, and then the principal of the share paid. The general rule undoubtedly is, that payments are first applied to interest before any of the principal debt can be extinguished; but we think that where the payee agrees to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langston v. Langston
...made by the Jury or not, that the finding might have been made for that amount, a new trial should not be granted." See also Donaldson v. Cothran, 60 Ga. 604 (1). Plaintiff in error insists that if the plaintiff in the court below was entitled to recover the verdict should have been for a l......
-
Langston v. Langston
...made by the Jury or not, that the finding might have been made for that amount, a new trial should not be granted." See also Donaldson v. Cothran, 60 Ga. 604 (1). in error insists that if the plaintiff in the court below was entitled to recover the verdict should have been for a larger sum.......
-
Brown v. Wilkes
... ... will not control the discretion of the presiding judge in ... overruling the motion for a new trial." Donaldson v ... Cothran, Adm'r, 60 Ga. 604(1); Doster Adm'r ... v. Arnold, 60 Ga. 317(2) ... There ... is evidence to support the ... ...
-
Grimes v. Murray
...sustained, then this court will not control the discretion of the presiding judge in overruling the motion for the new trial." Donaldson v. Cothran, 60 Ga. 604 (1). There appears to be ample evidence to support the and the motion for a new trial was properly refused. Judgment affirmed. BROY......