Sparks v. Battersby
| Decision Date | 31 July 1874 |
| Citation | 53 Ga. 36 |
| Parties | Hardeman & Sparks, plaintiffs in error. v. William Battersby,defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Equity. Jurisdiction. Warehousemen. Statute of limitations. Before Judge Hill. Bibb Superior Court. October Term. 1873.
For the facts of this case, see the decision.
*R. F. Lyon, for plaintiffs in error.
Lanier & Anderson, for defendant.
This was a bill filed by the complainant, as the surviving copartner of the firm of William Battersby & Company, against defendants, in which the complainant alleges that in May, 1864, Battersby & Company placed in the hands of one North certain cotton receipts given by the defendants, as warehousemen, to have the cotton specified therein shipped to them at Savannah, the cotton being the property of complainant; that North died without having removed or disposed of thirty bales of said cotton; that complainant is unable to find defendants' receipts for the cotton among the papers of North, after a careful search; that the same were lost, destroyed or misplaced whilst in the possession of North, and cannot be found; that complainant has demanded the cotton of defendants, which they said they would deliver on the production of their receipts, complainant then and there offering to indemnify them from liability to any other person or persons on said cotton receipts, as he was unable to produce them, said receipts having been lost, destroyed or misplaced, as before stated. The defendants refused to deliver the cotton. The complainant prays that defendants may be decreed to account to him for the value of the cotton, after allowing them all proper charges and expenses for and on account of the storage of said cotton, upon his giving bond and security as heretofore offered by him.
Such are substantially the allegations in complainant's bill, which was filed in the clerk's office on the 19th of October, 1867, and was pending in court without any demurrer thereto, until the 23d of January, 1874, when the complainant amended his bill, at which term of the court the case came on for trial. The defendants then demurred to the complainant'sbill on the ground that there was no equity in it, inas-much *as the complainant had an adequate and complete remedy at common law. The court overruled the demurrer, and the defendants excepted.
1. The receipts for the cotton were not given by the defendants to the complainant, and we infer from the description givenin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miskimmins v. Shaver
...199; Ex parte Robinson, 6 McLean, 355; Gould v. Hayes, 19 Ala. 438; Averill v. Hartford, 2 Cal. 308; Beatty v. Ross, 1 Fla., 198; Hardman v. Batterby, 53 Ga. 36; Mail Maxwell, 107 Ill. 554; Taylor v. Fort Wayne, 47 Ind. 274; Barkdull v. Herwig, 30 La. An., 618; Winn v. Albert, 2 Md. Ch., 43......
-
State ex rel. Horton v. Dickinson
...of the cause will retain its jurisdiction throughout, and make final disposition of the cause. Hawes v. Orr, 10 Bush, 432; Hardeman v. Battersby, 53 Ga. 36; Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 199, 23 L. Ed. 829; The Mary R. McKillop (D. C.) 23 Fed. 829;Barkdull v. Herwig, 30 La. Ann. 618. Says the......
-
State ex rel. Horton v. Dickinson
... ... jurisdiction throughout, and make final disposition of the ... cause. Hawes v. Orr, 10 Bush [Ky.] 431; Hardeman ... v. Battersby, 53 Ga. 36; Ober v. Gallagher, 93 ... U.S. 199, 23 L.Ed. 829; The Mary R. McKillop, 23 F ... 829; Barkdull v. Herwig, 30 La. Ann. 618. Says the ... ...
-
Cobe v. Ricketts
...Mass. 167; Home Ins. Co. v. Howell, 24 N.J.Eq. 238; Sayler v. Simpson, 45 Ohio St. 141, 12 N.E. 181; Hawes v. Orr, 10 Bush. 431; Hardeman v. Battersby, 53 Ga. 36; v. Circuit Judge, 52 Mich. 257, 18 N.W. 396; Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U.S. 199, 23 L.Ed. 829.] This rule is necessary in order to p......