Roberts v. Prior
| Decision Date | 31 August 1856 |
| Docket Number | N0. 98. |
| Citation | 20 Ga. 561 |
| Parties | Benson Roberts, administrator of Jefferson Adams, deceased, plaintiff in error. vs. Wieeiam Prior, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Assumpsit, in Pike Superior Court. Tried before Judge Greene, April Term, 1856.
Benson Roberts, as administrator of Jefferson Adams, brought an action of assumpsit against William Prior, on the following account:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |Win. Prior, to Tefferson Adams, |Dr. |
|-----|----|--|-----------------------------------------|-------|
|I849.|Jan.|I.|To hire of nesro boy Tim for 1848, |$220 00|
|-----|----|--|-----------------------------------------|-------|
| |" |" |Int. on same for 3 years to Jan. 1. 1852,|$47 25 |
|-----|----|--|-----------------------------------------|-------|
|1850.|" |" |Hire of negro boy Jim for 1849, |$225 00|
|-----|----|--|-----------------------------------------|-------|
| |" |" |Int. for two years to Jan. 1852, |$31 50 |
|-----|----|--|-----------------------------------------|-------|
|1851.|" |" |Hire of negro boy Jim for 1850, |$225 00|
|-----|----|--|-----------------------------------------|-------|
| |" |" |Int. for one year to Jan. 1852, |$15 75 |
|-----|----|--|-----------------------------------------|-------|
|1852.|" |" |Hire of negro boy Jim for 1851, |$225 00|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendant pleaded payment.
The only question which arose in the progress of the trial of the cause, was as to the interest.
Counsel for the plaintiff requested the Court to charge the Jury, that plaintiff was entitled to recover interest on the balance due for the hire of the negro boy Jim, from the different dates at which the hire was due. The Court refused to give the charge, and decided that plaintiff's claim was an unliquidated demand, and did not carry interest.
To which charge and refusal to charge Counsel for plaintiff excepted.
Alford & Moore; Whittle, for plaintiff in error. Starke, for defendant.
By the Court.— Lumpkin, J., delivering the opinion.
Is a contract of hire for a negro at a stipulated price to be paid at the end of the year, an open account or a liquidated demand?
We had supposed that if anything was settled, this point was. In Nisbet and Lawson, we stated the rule to be, that whenever the demand was fixed and certain, either...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gary v. Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co
...of the Supreme Court in Ansley v. Jordan, 61 Ga. 483 (3). See further, in this connection, Earnest v. Nappier, 19 Ga. 537 (3); Roberts v. Prior, 20 Ga. 561; Council v. Hixon, 11 Ga. App. 818 (4), 76 S. E. 603; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Koehler, 36 Ga. App. 396 (5), 414, 137 S. E. 85.......
-
Gary v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.
...of the Supreme Court in Ansley v. Jordan, 61 Ga. 483 (3). See further, in this connection, Earnest v. Nappier, 19 Ga. 537 (3); Roberts v. Prior, 20 Ga. 561; Council v. Hixon, 11 Ga.App. 818 (4), 76 S.E. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Koehler, 36 Ga.App. 396 (5), 414, 137 S.E. 85. Judgment ......
-
Cochrane v. Forbes
...of the party to be charged. Unliquidated damages are those which cannot thus be made certain by one of the parties alone. Roberts v. Prior, 20 Ga. 561, 562; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway v. Clark, 178 U. S. 353, 372, 20 S. Ct. 924 (44 L. Ed. 1099);Canda v. Canda, 92 N. J. Eq. 423, 4......
-
Davies v. Turner
...future adjustment, and which may be reduced or modified by proof." [Italics ours.] See also Anderson v. State, 2 Ga. 370 (4); Roberts v. Prior, 20 Ga. 561, 562; Cornett v. Fain, 33 Ga. 219, 224; Smith v. Ellington, 14 Ga. 379, 382. However, when, in a suit on account for the balance due, th......