Hagans v. Blitch

• Decision Date: 09 November 1909
• Docket Number: (No. 1,760.)
• Citation: 65 S.E. 1082,6 Ga.App. 839
• Parties: HAGANS et al. v. BLITCH.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

65 S.E. 1082

6 Ga.App. 839

HAGANS et al.

v.BLITCH.

(No. 1, 760.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Nov. 9, 1909.

1. Judgment (§§ 870, 871, 876^*) — Revival — Payment—Presumption.

Although a judgment be dormant under the statute, and has therefore lost its lien, it is still a subsisting debt, and the judgment can be renewed as matter of right by scire facias or by suit. During the period of dormancy there is no presumption, in favor of the defendant, that the judgment has been paid; but such presumption exists only as to third persons. Civ. Code 1805, § 5378; Battle v. Shivers. 39 Ga. 410; Chamhliss v. Phelps, 39 Ga. 386 (2); Groves v. Williams, 68 Ga. 598 (3).

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 1609, 1610, 1648-1652; Dec. Dig. §§ 870, 871, 876.*]

2. Judgment (§ 871*) — Action to Revive — General Issue—Matters Put in Issue.

In a suit to revive a judgment issued from a justice's court, when the only plea is the general issue, the introduction in evidence of a transcript of the judgment, with entries, showing summons and personal service, and the transcript of the fi. fa. with entries of partial payments, would be sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict reviving the judgment on the balance of the debt due thereon. Under the plea of the general issue, the correctness of the debt, satisfaction by payment, or satisfaction by lapse of time, is not in issue. Civ. Code 1895, § 5053; Matthews v. Bates, 93 Ga. 318, 20 S. E. 320.

[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Judgment, Dec. Dig. § 871.*]

3. Verdict Properly Directed.

The court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Bulloch County; B. T. Rawlings, Judge.

Action by W. H. Blitch, executor, against Willis Hagans and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

G. S. Johnston and Hines & Jordan, for plaintiffs in error.

Brannen & Booth, for defendant in error.

HILL, C. J. Judgment affirmed.