Taliaferro v. Moffett

Decision Date31 January 1875
Citation54 Ga. 150
PartiesV. H. Taliaferro, plaintiff in error. v. Charles J. MoFFETT,defendants in error.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

*Contracts. License. Pleadings. Physicians. Before Judge Hopkins. Fulton Superior Court. October Term, 1874.

For the facts, see the decision;

Robert Baugh, for plaintiff in error.

McConnell & Heyward, for defendant.

WARNER, Chief Justice.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant on four promissory notes, one for $87 00, dated 3d August, 1870, due one day after date; one for $56 88, dated 1st January, 1873, due one day after date; one for $73 61, dated 1st January, 1873, due one day alter date, and one for $119 71, dated 1st January, 1873, due one day after date, all of said notes payable to the order of C. J. Moffett. The defendant filed his plea to said plaintiff's action, in which he alleged that three of said notes sued on, bearing date 1st January, 1873, were given in settlement and liquidation of three several accounts for drugs and medicines sold by plaintiff, as druggist, in the city of Columbus, Georgia, to defendant, during the years 1870, 1871 and 1872; that the other note, dated 3d August, 1870, was also given in settlement and liquidation of an account for drugs and medicines sold to defendant during the year 1869, in the city of Columbus, Georgia, by plaintiff and one Pope, who was then a partner of said plaintiff, said note being made payable to plaintiff; that during said time, to-wit: during the years 1869, 1870, 1871 and 1872, the said plaintiff, and said plaintiff and Pope, did open and keep a drug and apothecary store in Columbus, Georgia, and out of which they did sell and vend said drugs and medicines to defendant, for which said notes were given, and defendant says that during all this time, said plaintiff was selling drugs and medicines in Columbus, Georgia, to defendant, and also during all the time said plaintiff and said Pope were selling drugs to defendant in Columbus. Georgia, and *while they did keep and open a drug and apothecary store in Columbus, Georgia, out of which said drugs and medicines were sold to defendant, in consideration of which said notes in this declaration mentioned were given, neither the said plaintiff nor the said Pope, nor the said firm of Pope & Moffett, or either of them, separately ur together, had obtained a license to open or keep a drug store or apothecary store, from the medical board of his or their own school of said state, or from the boad of physicians of the allopathic school of said state, nor were the said plaintiff or the said Pope, separately or together, engaged in selling drugs in his or their business, as druggist, prior to the 24th of December, 1847, nor did they continue to do so till the 1st of January, 1863, the time of the adoption of the Code of Georgia, all of which defendant is ready to verify; wherefore he plays judgment, etc. To this plea of the defendant, the plaintiff demurred, the court sustained the demurrer, and the defendant excepted.

1. By the 1395th section of the Code there is established, in this state, a board of physicians of the allopathic school, who have the authority,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • In re Watson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Vermont
    • December 1, 1882
    ... ... State, 2 Ark. 291; Tarde v. Benseman, 31 ... Tex. 277 ... [ C12 ] State v. Pate, 67 Mo. 488 ... [ D12 ] Taliafero v. Moffett, 54 Ga ... [ E12 ] Kane v. State, 78 Ind. 103. Where a ... general obligation exists, the legislature may give it local ... effect. Lycoming v ... ...
  • Management Search, Inc. v. Kinard
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • September 6, 1973
    ...contract, is the holding of a license as required by the statute a condition precedent to recovery? 'See in this connection: Taliaferro v. Moffett, 54 Ga. 150; Murray v. Williams, 121 Ga. 63 (48 S.E. 686); Padgett v. Silver Lake Park Corp., 168 Ga. 759 (149 S.E. 180); Bayne v. Sun Finance C......
  • Zimmerman v. Brown
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 12, 1917
    ...public revenue only, the imposition of a penalty amounts to a positive prohibition of contracts made contrary to the statute. (Taliaferro v. Moffert, 54 Ga. 150; v. Tuell, 89 Me. 443, 36 A. 910, 38 L. R. A. 143.) Where a statute imposes a penalty for a failure to comply with its provisions,......
  • Danciger Brothers v. The American Express Company
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 1913
    ...purposes only, the imposition of the penalty amounts to a positive prohibition of a contract made in violation of the statute. Talliaferro v. Moffett, 54 Ga. 150; Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 278. (15) A may either expressly prohibit or enjoin an act, or it may impliedly prohibit or enjoin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT