Sutton v. Hurley
| Citation | 77 S.E. 218,12 Ga.App. 312 |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1913 |
| Docket Number | 3,945. |
| Parties | SUTTON v. HURLEY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the defendant's answer, nor in thereafter entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
(a) Generally, the execution of a promissory note is prima facie evidence of the full settlement of all accounts up to the date of the note. A compromise, or mutual accord and satisfaction, is binding on both parties.
(b) The facts as alleged in the defendant's answer are wholly insufficient to show that the note was executed under duress and, in fact, the statement of the answer is too general for the court to be able to decide that anything whatever was done to coerce the will of the maker of the note.
(c) It is plain, from the answer, that the defendant's right to recoup is against the partnership of which the plaintiff is alleged to have been a member, and not against the plaintiff individually; but even if this did not appear the allegations of the defendant are too vague and indefinite to be the basis of a finding.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
An allegation in an answer, that plaintiff's attorney approached defendant about the date of the note, and threatened him to such an extent that he signed some kind of writing to pay something, without giving the facts, is a mere conclusion of the pleader.
Frank L. Neufville, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Arnaud & Donehoo and Paul Donehoo, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Hurley the defendant in error, brought a suit against Sutton upon a promissory note. The defendant's plea and answer was demurred to by the plaintiff as setting forth no defense, and the court, upon this demurrer, struck the answer and entered judgment by default. The plaintiff in error excepts to the judgment sustaining the demurrer, and to the final judgment upon the note.
The answer of the defendant, in part, attempts to set up a failure of consideration, and asks for damages by way of recoupment. It also attempts to set up that the note is void because it was obtained by duress. It is admitted, however, that the defendant executed the note; and, construing the answer as it was drawn by the defendant, it is apparent that the purpose of the defendant is to go behind the settlement evidenced by his note, which must be presumed to have been given in accord and satisfaction of any differences of account existing between the parties at that time. There would be no difficulty on this point, so far as the jurisdiction of the city court is concerned, if the defendant had a case for even equitable relief, because, while the city court has no jurisdiction to grant affirmative equitable relief, the aid of equity may be invoked to defend against injustice.
From the allegations of the defendant's own answer, it appears that he gave the note in question; and that it was not given...
To continue reading
Request your trial