Mahaffey v. Petty

Decision Date31 March 1846
Docket NumberNo. 41.,41.
Citation1 Ga. 261
PartiesWm. Mahaffey, plaintiff in error. vs. Henry C. Petty et al., defendants in error.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Simple and short precedents in Debt and Assumpsit.

By the CourtLumpkin, Judge.

The plaintiff filed the following declaration against the defendants, in the above case:

GEORGIA.

Muscogee County,

To the Honorable Inferior Court of said county.

The petition of William Mahaffey shows, that Henry C. Petty, Philip A. Clayton, Robert A. Ware, William Bilbro and John Bilbro, as copart-ners, and all of said county, owe to, and unjustly attain from, your petitioner, the sum of eight hundred and nineteen dollars and eighty-five cents, as principal, besides interest thereon, at eight per cent, per annum, and besides thirty-four dollars and eighty-one cents as costs of suit. For that whereas, at the Superior Court o"f Franklin county in Apalachicola district, of the Territory of Florida, begun and held in the city of Apalachicola aforesaid, in the district aforesaid, heretofore, to wit, on the fourteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and forty-one, before the Honorable Samuel W. Carmack, the judge of said court; your petitioner, by the consideration and judgment of said court, recovered against said defendants the sum of eight hundred and nineteen dollars and eighty-live cents, which was adjudged to him for his damages, and also recovered against said defendants ins costs by him about his suit in that behalf expended; ana your petitioner says that his said costs were the sum of thirty-four dollars and eighty-one cents; whereof said defendants were convicted as by the record and proceedings thereof, still remaining in said court, before the judge thereof, at the city of Apalachicola aforesaid, more fully appears; whereby an action lias accrued to your petitioner, to demand and have of and from said defendants, said sum of eight hundred and nineteen dollars and eighty-five cents, besides interest thereon at eight per cent, per annum, from the day and year aforesaid, and also said sum of thirty-four dollars and eighty-one cents. And your petitioner further shows, that said defendants are indebted to your petitioner in another sum of thirty-three hundred dollars. For that whereas, heretofore, to wit, on the twenty-third day of February, eighteenbundred and thirty-nine, in consideration that your petitioner would act and serve as engineer of and on board the steamer Alabama, running on and navigating Chattahoochee river, the said defendant agreed and promised him to pay him for his services as such engineer, at and after the rate of two hundred dollars a month, for and during the time your petitioner should so serve; and your petitioner says that he did so serve said defendants as engineer of and on board said steamer for a long space, to wit, from the day and year last aforesaid, until the fifteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and forty. By means whereof said defendants became liable to pay to your petitioner, said first (in this count) mentioned sum of money, to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid. Yet said defendants, although often requested so to do, did not. nor would, pay said sum of money, or any part thereof, to your petitioner, but have hitherto wholly failed and neglected so to do; whereby an action has accrued to your petitioner, to have and demand from said defendants said last-mentioned sum of money. And for that Whereas, said defendants, heretofore, to-wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, was. indebted to your petitioner in one other sum of thirty-three hundred dollars, for the wages of your petitioner before that time, and then due, and payable from said defendants to your petitioner, for the service of your petitioner by him before that time done and performed as an engineer of and on board of a certain steamer of said defendants, called the Alabama, and for said defendants, and on their retainer, and to be paid by said defendants to your petitioner, when they should be thereunto afterwards requested. Whereby, and by reason of said last-mentioned sum of money being wholly unpaid, an action has ac-crued to your petitioner to have and demand from said defendants said last-mentioned sum of money.

And for that, whereas, heretofore, to wit: on the first day of November, in the year aforesaid, in consideration that your petitioner would act and serve as engineer of, for, and on board of said steamer Alabama, plying on and navigating said river Chattahoochee; they, the said defendants, promised him to pay him for his services as such engineer, at and after the rate of two hundred dollars per mouth, for and during the boating season, then immediately ensuing; that is to say, from the said first day of November, until the middle of the Spring of the year next following; and your petitioner says that he did act and serve as engineer of, ror, and on board of said steamer Alabama, plying on and navigating said river, for a long space of time, to wit: during said boating season, that is to say, from said first day of November, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-nine aforesaid, until the fifteenth day of April, in the year next thereafter. By means whereof said defendants became liable to pay to your petitioner said last-mentioned sum of money, to wit: on the day and year last aforesaid. Yet said defendants, although often requested so to do, did not, nor would pay to your petitioner said sum of money, or any part thereof, but have hitherto wholly failed and neglected so to do. And whereas, also, the said defendants, to wit: on the said fifteenth day of April, in the year eighteen hundred and forty, were indebted to your petitioner, in the further sum of thirty-three hundred dollars, for the work and labor, care and diligence of your petitioner, by him before that time done and performed, and bestowed in and about the business of the defendants, and for them, and at their special instance and request, and also, for divers materials, and other necessary things, by your said petitioner found, provided, used and applied, in and about that work and labor, for said defendants, and at their special instance and request, and to be paid to your petitioner, when they should be thereunto afterwards requested: whereby, and by means of said last-mentioned sum of money being and remaining wholly unpaid, an action hath accrued to your petitioner, to have and demand of said defendants said last-mentioned sum of money. Yet said defendants, although often requested so to do, have not paid your petitioner said sum or sums of money, above demanded, or every or either of them, or any part thereof, but to do so have wholly refused and failed, and still fail and refuse, 1o the damage of your petitioner, four thousand dollars; and, therefore, he brings suit and prays process may issue, requiring said defendants to be and appear at the next Inferior Court, to be held in and for said county, then and there to answer your petitioner in an action of debt.

Jones, Benning and Jones, Plaintiff's Attorneys.

The defendants to this action pleaded the general issue, that they...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Miller v. Robertson Robertson v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1924
    ...Norris v. School District, 12 Me. 293, 297, 28 Am. Dec. 182; Jenkins v. Richardson, 6 J. J. Marsh. [Ky.] 441, 22 Am. Dec. 82; Mahaffey v. Petty, 1 Ga. 261, 264). The meaning of the word 'debt,' as used in many statutes, is not restricted to demands enforceable in actions of debt. Lord Coke,......
  • Brightwell v. Oglethorpe Tel. Co
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1932
    ...being essentially the same as the common-law action of assumpsit, and is not an equity case. Whitehead v. Peck, 1 Ga. 140; Mahaf-fey v. Petty, 1 Ga. 261; McCay v. Barber, 37 Ga. 423; James v. Smith, 62 Ga. 345(3); Cragg v. Arendale, 113 Ga. 181(8), 38 S. E. 399; Buchanan v. McClain, 110 Ga.......
  • Braddy v. W. T. Rawleigh Co
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 19, 1943
    ...same amount. Blackshear Manufacturing Co. v. Harrell, supra. See in this connection Cody v. State, 118 Ga. 784, 45 S.E. 622; William Mahaffey v. Petty, 1 Ga. 261(1); Hancock v. Ross, 18 Ga. 364. The note was one of the three ways the plaintiff sought to prove that the defendants promised to......
  • Braddy v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 19, 1943
    ...same amount. Blackshear Manufacturing Co. v. Harrell, supra. See in this connection Cody v. State, 118 Ga. 784, 45 S.E. 622; William Mahaffey v. Petty, 1 Ga. 261(1); Hancock v. Ross, 18 Ga. The note was one of the three ways the plaintiff sought to prove that the defendants promised to pay ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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