Stansell v. Massey

• Decision Date: 17 April 1893
• Parties: STANSELL v. MASSEY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

17 S.E. 821

92 Ga. 436

STANSELL v. MASSEY.

Supreme Court of Georgia

April 17, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

In trying an appeal from a county court the superior court can reach no result which could not have been reached in the county court had the case been finally disposed of there. It follows that on the trial of such appeal the superior court cannot entertain an equitable petition offered by the defendant as an amendment to a plea of the general issue which petition contemplates and prays for relief which only a court of equity, or a court of law exercising full equity powers, could administer, such as the rescission of contracts, the cancellation of promissory notes, injunction etc. Greer v. Burnam, 69 Ga. 734; Hufbauer v Jackson, (October term, 1892.) ^[1]

Error from superior court, Wayne county; Spencer R. Atkinson Judge.

Action by John Massey against L. E. Stansell. Plaintiff had judgment, and, from an order denying a new trial, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

The following is the official report:

There were pending in the superior court of Wayne county nine cases, brought up by appeal from the county court, in favor of Massey against Mrs. L. E. Stansell, all being upon promissory notes. Upon the hearing in the superior court, the first of these cases being taken up, the defendant offered to amend her plea of the general issue. In the amendment she alleged, among other things, that all of the suits were really one subject-matter, covered but one issue, and should and could be combined, and she so prayed. The court allowed only so much of the amendment as sought to consolidate the cases, and refused to allow the remainder of the amendment. To this decision, refusing to allow the amendment for all purposes, and in restricting the same, Mrs. Stansell excepted. There was a verdict against her, and she moved for a new trial. The motion was overruled, and to this she excepted. The plea was. There are pending in the superior court nine appeal cases, all in favor of Massey against this defendant, all appealed to the superior court from the county court, and all upon promissory notes dated January 15, 1889 and for amounts of $50 and $100, aggregating, for all notes sued, $1,900. Subsequent to the rendition of the judgment in the county court on these notes, Massey filed his four other suits in that court upon like notes, aggregating $500 principal, which cases are now pending there. The consideration of all of the notes was the supposed purchase money for a piece of land in Jesup, described in the plea. Some time previous to January 15, 1889, petitioner's husband made an agreement with Massey, by the terms of which Massey was to sell and convey him said property for $5,000, of which Stansell was to pay $2,000 cash, and the balance on time; Stansell to have the money belonging to defendant as guardian for her son, and the money of the ward. He paid Massey $100 to bind the bargain, as they said, and afterwards, finding he was unable to pay the $2,000 cash, they changed the terms of their agreement so that Stansell would pay $1,500 cash to Massey, and the balance on time; the time being as specified, and shown by a bond for title referred to. Petitioner had no concern whatever with this transaction, and was in no way interested in it, but after it was consummated, and before the bond for title was drawn and delivered, Massey's attorney suggested that the bond be made in her name, for the reason that the cash payment was to come, as he expressed it, "from her side of the house,"--that is, was to come out of the money of her...