Jackson v. Brown

Citation164 S.E.2d 450,118 Ga.App. 558
Decision Date25 October 1968
Docket NumberNo. 2,No. 43978,43978,2
PartiesL. J. JACKSON v. Elmer BROWN
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

Syllabus by the Court.

The limitation for an action based on a written acknowledgment of an account is four years from the date of the writing.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint which alleged that the plaintiff was indebted to him on an account, as follows: 'Statement Of Account Jackson Brothers Company. Dry goods, shoes, hardware, staple and fancy groceries. Tignall, Georgia, 12/31/62 Acct. Bal.-$747.95, Elmer Brown.' The complaint was filed October 5, 1967. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claim was barred by the statute of limitation.

Lawson E. Thompson, Washington, for appellant.

Robert E. Knox, Thomson, for appellee.

HALL, Judge.

The issue is whether the period of limitation for bringing the action was four or six years. Code § 3-705 provides: 'All actions upon promissory notes, bills of exchange, or other simple contracts in writing shall be brought within six years after the same shall have become due and payable.' Code § 3-706 provides: 'All actions upon open account, or for the breach of any contract not under the hand of the party sought to be charged, or upon any implied assumpsit or undertaking, shall be brought within four years after the right of action shall have accrued.'

The earliest decision that we have found on the period of limitation for an action based on a written acknowledgment of an account is Hicks & Lord v. Thomas, 1 Dud. (Ga.) 218, which held that an action based on an acknowledgment of an open account by letter 'was not barred as by the Act of 1809' (Code § 3-706) and was not barred until the expiration of six years.

The Georgia Code of 1863 included the statute of limitation contained in § 3-706 of the Code of 1933, supra (the Act of 1809 referred to in Hicks & Lord v. Thomas, supra) and the statute of limitation contained in § 3-705 of the Code of 1933, supra. The Code of 1863 also included the provision contained in § 3-904 of the Code of 1933. 'A new promise shall revive or extend the original liability; it shall not create a new one.'

This legislative enactment superseded the decision in Hicks & Lord v Thomas, supra, as to the limitation for an action on a written acknowledgement of an account. When a new promise is given, the duration of the limitation is not determined by the nature of the new promise,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Hodge v. Dixon, 43997
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 14 Marzo 1969
    ...A.G. Reeves Steel Const. Co. v. Weiss, 119 F.2d 472, 476(9-12); Franklin v. Jordan, 224 Ga. 727, 164 S.E.2d 718; Jackson v. Brown, 118 Ga.App. 558, 164 S.E.2d 450. Where subsequent to the original negligent act there occurs another tortious act sufficient of itself to cause the injury compl......
  • Wynn v. State, 47154
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 28 Septiembre 1972
    ...trial judge, see Harris v. State, 118 Ga.App. 769(3), 165 S.E.2d 462; Dye v. State, 118 Ga.App. 570(2), 165 S.E.2d 183; Jackson v. Brown, 118 Ga.App. 558, 164 S.E.2d 450. It should also be noted that, unlike most of the cases cited, this one does not involve a charge of the court to the jur......
  • Board of Tax Assessors of Muscogee County v. Heard, 43925
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 25 Octubre 1968

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT