Meredith v. Hollingsworth

• Decision Date: 30 November 1865
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: Samuel Meredith, plaintiff in error. vs. Knott & Hollingsworth, defendants in error.

34 Ga. 222

Samuel Meredith, plaintiff in error. vs. Knott & Hollingsworth, defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

NOVEMBER TERM, 1865.

Possessory Warrant. Decided by Judge Harris. At Chambers. October 1865.

The warrant in this case was issued in Wilkinson county by Judge Harris, on an affidavit made in Bibb county before Judge Cole. For this cause, the defendant moved, at the hearing, to dismiss the warrant; which motion the presiding Judge overruled.

The affidavit alleged that fifteen hales of cotton had been forcibly and secretly taken by Samuel Meredith, of Wilkinson county, from the possession of the firm of Knott & Holliugsworth, etc.

The evidence at the hearing consisted of a receipt in writing, and the testimony of one witness—both introduced by the plaintiffs. The receipt was as follows:

"Received, Macon, Nov. 1st, 1861, of Knott & Hollingsworth $1,891.25, in full for four bales of cotton, now under shelter on my plantation. Said cotton I agree to keep under shelter until called for, and further agree to deliver said cotton to them, or their order, in Macon, or at any station nearest me on the railroad. Said cotton at their risk until taken away. Samuel Meredith."

The defendant objected to the admission of this receipt in evidence, urging that it went to the question of title, and to that of the right of possession; that it showed defendant to be only a bailee or warehouseman of the plaintiffs; that it showed that the actual possession never had passed under it; and that it proved simply an agency. He contended that a principal could not, in this summary manner, dispossess his agent; but the Court overruled all his objections, and admitted the receipt.

The testimony of the witness was, that, as agent for the plaintiffs, he made a demand upon the defendant, in September, 1865, prior to the date of the warrant, for fifteen bales of cotton, as the property of the plaintiffs, and which were in their possession on the defendant's plantation; that the defendant refused to deliver, giving as a reason that he had received payment in Confederate money, part of which he had used, and part lost: and that he referred witness to Eli dimming, Esq., his attorney at law, as authorized to settle for him all matters in dispute.

What was said of the reception and loss of Confederate money, the defendant objected to as evidence, on the ground of irrelevancy. The Court overruled this objection also.

Upon these facts, the presiding Judge awarded to theplaintiffs the possession of the four bales of cotton mentioned in the receipt, and dismissed the warrant, without prejudice to a future...