Miller v. Others

• Decision Date: 31 January 1855
• Docket Number: No. 18.,18.
• Citation: 17 Ga. 92
• Parties: James S. MillER, plaintiff in error. vs. Irvin J.Saunders and others, defendants in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

17 Ga. 92

James S. MillER, plaintiff in error. vs. Irvin J.Saunders and others, defendants in error.

No. 18.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JANUARY TERM, 1855.

In Equity, in Dougherty Superior Court. Decision by Judge Perkins, December Term, 1854.

The error complained of was the sustaining of exceptions to the answers of plaintiff in error, to a bill filed by the defendants in error.

1. The bill charged the execution of a marriage contract between James S. Miller and his wife, a copy of which was attached to the bill. The defendant answered that this copy "may be a substantial, if not a true copy of the deed, burprayed that complainant be held to the strict proof thereof The Court held this answer insufficient.

2. The answer failed to state the value of a negro Elias, in eluded in the deed, or his annual hire. It set up absolute title in Elias, in defendant. The Court required him to answer.

3. The bill charged, that there had been a settlement between the complainant and defendant, which defendant had violated by fraudulently causing a fi. fa. to be sent to Dougherty County, and levied on a portion of the negroes. The answer was silent as to the sending of the fi. fa. to Dougherty. The Court held it a material allegation, and required an answer.

4. One of the interrogatories in the bill was unanswered— the stating part of the bill being silent as to this interrogatory. The Court ordered it to be answered.

Upon these decisions error is assigned.

Scarborough, for plaintiff in error.

L. Warren, for defendant in error.

By the Court.—Starnes, J., delivering the opinion.

This case comes up to us, by the decision of the Court below, upon exceptions to an answer in Chancery.

The first objection is, that the Court erred in deciding that the answer was defective, because the defendant had not answered whether or not the copy of a marriage settlement exhibited, was a true copy of the original.

The defendant has been called upon, in the usual way, to answer upon this point according to his knowledge, information and belief, so as to save proof of execution to the complainant. He has not answered according to his information and belief, but has replied evasively, saying that the copy exhibited "may be a substantial, if not a true copy;" yet, praying that the complainants "may be held to strict proof;" and again— that "it may be proved as charged, that said marriage settlement was executed in manner and form as set forth, but respondent requires strict proof and authentication." This is not a proper answer. The complainant is entitled to. the knowledge or belief of the defendant upon this subject, and he must so answer.

The defendant admits that he has not answered as to value of the slave Elias, but denies that this is material.

It is true, that the title of the complainant to this slave is here put in question. And if he be not entitled to recover the slave, the value of the same can not be material to him. But this question may be more appropriately decided elsewhere;...