Epting v. Jones
| Decision Date | 31 January 1873 |
| Citation | 47 Ga. 622 |
| Parties | W. C. EPTING, plaintiff in error. v. JOHN JONES, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Montgomery, Judge, was providentially prevented from presiding in this case.)
John Jones brought complaint against W. C. Epting on a promissory note, dated September 4th, 1867, due on January 1st, thereafter, for $1,268 13, payable to William M. Fudge, or bearer, with the following indorsement thereon:
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and several special pleas, all of which are unnecessary to an understanding of the decision of the Court.
Upon the trial the defendant proposed to amend his pleas, by setting up the fact that the plaintiff had no existence at the time the declaration was filed in said cause, nor had any existence at the time of the trial, but was a fictitious person to whom the defendant never had been indebted, and that said *suit was commenced in the name of said fictitious person, to prevent the defendant from making his defense to said action. The amendment did not show what constituted the defense of which he was deprived. The Court refused to allow the amendment upon the ground that such a plea, if filed, would be demurrable, and the defendant excepted.
The plaintiff introduced the note and closed. The defendant introduced no testimony. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant assigns error upon the aforesaid ground of exception.
Thomas P. L, oyd; C. T. Goode; S. K. Goode; N. A. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant.
According to the claim of the plea, this suit is really brought by the true owner of the note. He has used a fictitious name, but nevertheless it is his act, and the payment of it to him, in whatever name, will be an unquestionable satisfaction of the debt. Had the plea set forth some defense, good against the true owner, and not against a stranger, or had the plea set out that the plaintiff was a tortious holder, so that the payment to him would not be good, by one having notice of the want of title, something might be said in favor of the plea. But as it stands it claims that the real owner is the movant, that he is suing his own note in another man's name. How does, or can this hurt the defendant? A matter of costs might rise if it appeared that the nominal plaintiff was insolvent, or purely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hay v. Hudson
... ... were pleaded in defense; this justified a judgment ... notwithstanding the verdict, Jones v. R. R. Co., 23 ... Wyo. 162, 5895 C. S., an affirmative defense of an admitted ... obligation is not proveable under a general denial, Pom. C ... Chenoworth, 51 Tex. 470; it is no ... defense that suit is brought by owners in a fictitious name, ... if defendant has no other defense, Epting v. Jones, ... 47 Ga. 622; pleading of a counterclaim is an admission of the ... existence of plaintiff's demand, Leclaire v ... Thibault, 41 ... ...
-
United States Fid. &. Guar. Co v. Koehler, (Nos. 17238, 17237.)
...v. Whitney, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) 36; Bankruptcy Act, § 46 (U. S. Comp. St. § 9630); Hull v. Burr, 64 Pla. 83, 59 So. 787. In Epting v. Jones, 47 Ga. 622, the Supreme Court held that it is not a good plea to a suit on a promissory note that it is brought by the true owner in a fictitious name,......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Koehler
... ... Whitney, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) 36; ... Bankruptcy Act, § 46 (U. S. Comp. St. § 9630); Hull v ... Burr, 64 Fla. 83, 59 So. 787. In Epting v ... Jones, 47 Ga. 622, the Supreme Court held that it is not ... a good plea to a suit on a promissory note that it is brought ... by the true ... ...
-
Bank v. First Nat. Bank Of Carrollton, (No. 18751.)
...or bill is executed to one in other than his real name, he may recover by showing that he was the payee intended. 8 C. J. 180; Epting v. Jones, 47 Ga. 622. On the question of the power of the judges of the municipal court of Atlanta to grant nonsuits, see Shippey v. Owens, 17 Ga. App. 127 (......