Ragland v. Barringer

• Decision Date: 30 June 1870
• Parties: THOMAS RAGLAND, administrator, plaintiff in error. v. M. BARRINGER, et al., defendants in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

41 Ga. 115

THOMAS RAGLAND, administrator, plaintiff in error. v. M. BARRINGER, et al., defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, June Term, 1870.)

Statute of Limitations. Bill of Exceptions. Before Judge Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. February Term, 1870.

In 1867, Ragland, as administrator, de bonis non, of George W. Hardwick, sued Barringer, et al., upon their joint and several promissory note, payable to himself, as such, dated December 15th, 1853, and due twelve months after date. They pleaded the Statute of Limitations. At the trial, plaintiff's attorney read in evidence the note, and closed.

Defendant's counsel read the proclamation of the Governor of Georgia, issued in reference to the suspension of specie payments by the Banks of Savannah, Macon and 115 Augusta, *dated December 18th, 1860. Plaintiff'sattorney then offered to prove, by a witness, that said Banks, or some of them, suspended specie payments before the 15th of December, 1860. Defendant\'s counsel objected upon the ground that the date of said suspension was fixed by said proclamation. The objection was sustained. The evidence being closed, the Court charged the jury that the Statute of Limitations was suspended in this State, on the 18th of December, 1860, and that if they believed that more than six years elapsed from the maturity of said note, up to the 18th of December, 1860, they should find for the defendants.

The jury found for defendants. Plaintiff's attorneys say the Court erred in rejecting said witness, and in charging as he did.

After stating that the plaintiff's counsel read in evidence said note, and closed, the recital in the bill of exceptions was: "Defendant's counsel then read to the Court and jury, the proclamation" of the Governor, etc. The proclamation was not set out, except as stated. Counsel for defendants in error, moved to dismiss the bill of exceptions, because said proclamation was not copied in the bill of exceptions. The Court (Brown, C. J. dissenting,) overruled the motion upon the ground that it was a matter of which judicial notice would be taken. Attorneys for plaintiff in error, said, in fact, it was not read to the jury, but to the Judge only.

Peabody & Brannon, Smith & Alexander, for plaintiff in error, relied upon the verbiage of said proclamation, and on Brian, ex., et al., v. Banks, 38th Ga. R., 301.

Ingram & Crawford. R. J. Moses, for defendants.

WARNER, J.

The errors assigned to the judgment of the Court below in this case, is in rejecting the evidence offered, to prove that the banks had suspended specie payments before the 15th day of December, 1860, and to the charge of the Court to the jury, in regard to the...