Roberts v. Hill
| Decision Date | 03 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 58 S.E.2d 465,81 Ga.App. 185 |
| Parties | ROBERTS et al. v. HILL et al. No 32764 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Maddox & Maddox, Rome, for plaintiffs in error.
Graham Wright, Rome, Wright & Scoggin, Rome, for defendants in error.
1. Where to the plaintiffs' petition seeking damages for fraud and deceit in the City Court of Floyd County, the defendant filed what was denominated as a special plea in bar, alleging that one of the plaintiffs had filed his suit in the Superior Court of Floyd County against the defendants and that a copy of the said suit was attached; that in the said case a verdict for the defendants was directed; that the plaintiff therein appealed that judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia; that the judgment of the trial court was affirmed and that the judgment was a final adjudication that no cause of action exists in favor of the plaintiffs; and where from the exhibits attached to the plea as amended, and from the evidence adduced upon the trial of the plea and from the report of the former case on appeal to this court, it appears that one of the plaintiffs here did in fact prosecute in the Superior Court a suit for damages for breach of warranty based upon the same facts and circumstances, that the trial judge there directed a verdict for the defendants and that upon appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed on the ground that it appeared that 'at the time the petition was filed the plaintiff had divested himself of his legal interest' in the subject matter of the suit by a transfer to a third person (not a party to either proceeding) and because 'no eviction of the plaintiff was shown;' the trial judge did not err in finding in favor of the plea in bar and in dismissing the plaintiffs' petition. See Roberts v. Hill et al., 78 Ga.App. 264, 50 S.E.2d 706.
2. A condition or fact once shown to exist is presumed to continue until a change in such status is shown. Coleman & Burden Co. v. Rice, 105 Ga. 163, 31 S.E. 424; American National Bank v Lee, 124 Ga. 863, 865, 53 S.E. 268; Tippens v. Lane, 184 Ga. 331(3), 191 S.E. 134; Sasser v. Byrd, 8 Ga.App. 824, 70 S.E. 157; Griffin v. Miller, 29 Ga.App. 585(1), 116 S.E. 339; Cook v. Cochran, 42 Ga.App. 478(2), 156 S.E. 465; and in the absence of special allegations showing that the plaintiffs here had acquired the legal interest in the subject matter of the suit the petition was subject to attack by special demurrer or plea, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the plea and in dismissing the petition where from the evidence adduced upon the trial and from the official report of the former case before this court it affirmatively appears that the plaintiffs did not have title to or a right in the subject matter of the suit but that such right or title was in some third person not a party to the case.
3. 'A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue, or which under the rules of law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkins v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources
...control the proceedings, and to appeal from the judgment. Berry v. Slappey, 229 Ga. 109, 110, 189 S.E.2d 394 (1972); Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga.App. 185, 58 S.E.2d 465 (1950); Williams v. Cowart, 27 Ga. 187, 192 We find that a putative father clearly falls within the general definition of a "pa......
-
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Gault
...S.E.2d 5 (husband and wife in privity where wife previously sued in both individual and representative capacities); Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga.App. 185(3), 58 S.E.2d 465 (1950) (privies are all parties represented by the parties and claim under them, term privity denoting mutual or successive r......
-
Mattison v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...S.E.2d 611; Wilkins v. Ga. Cas. Co., 19 Ga.App. 162, 165, 91 S.E. 224; Griffin v. Miller, 29 Ga.App. 585, 116 S.E. 339; Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga.App. 185(2), 58 S.E.2d 465. Accordingly, it was a question for jury determination as to whether Humphrey was still a permissive user of the automobi......
-
Fleeman v. Department of Human Resources
...parties; the term privity denot[es] mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of property.' [Cit.]" Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga.App. 185, 186(3), 58 S.E.2d 465 (1950). Appellee has asserted claims against appellant under two provisions of the Child Support Recovery Act (the "Act") (OC......