Wilson v. Morrison
| Citation | 29 Ga. 269 |
| Parties | Benj. J. Wilson, plaintiff in error. vs. James J. Morrison,defendant in error. |
| Decision Date | 31 August 1859 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Complaint, in Polk Superior Court. Nonsuit by Judge Hammond, April Term, 1859.
This was an action by Benjamin J. Wilson, against James J. Morrison, on the following written instrument, which plaintiff sued on and described in his petition as a promissory note, viz.:
Plaintiff tendered and read in evidence the above instrument and closed; and counsel for defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the paper sued on was not a promissory note. The court sustained the motion and awarded a nonsuit, and plaintiff excepted.
Fielder & BroyeES, for plaintiff in error.
Chisholm & Waddell, contra.
By the Court.—Benning, J., delivering the opinion.
Did the court err in granting the nonsuit? We think not. The instrument declared on, is so absurd as it stands, that we may assume it to contain a mistake. It is probable that it was Wilson who drafted the instrument, and, that he, by inadvertence, forgetting that he was writing for Morrison, used the words, "a certain note, I have this day traded to said Morrison, " instead of the words, a certain note, the said B. J. Wilson has traded to me.
Assuming this supposition to be true, did the court err in granting the nonsuit?
What, on this supposition, does the instrument mean? This, we think: That Morrison promised to pay Wilson $177 by the 25th day of December, 1855, out of a note on Perryman, "traded" by Wilson to Morrison, provided the note should, by that time, be collected, but if it should not be, then to pay him the $177 when the note should be collected and not before. The promise was a promise to pay out ofthe proceeds of the note, and out of them only. This we think, the most natural and obvious meaning of the instrument. Therefore, in the absence of aliunde evidence of a different meaning, we must say, that this is the meaning.
Taking this as the meaning, it is obvious that the nonsuit was right, for there was no proof that the Perryman note had been collected, or that it might, by the use of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charles F. Noyes Co. v. Hadsell
...to be paid out of a particular fund, if paid at all, (see, in this connection, Wilbanks v. Smith, 35 Ga.App. 431, 133 S.E. 300; Wilson v. Morrison, 29 Ga. 269(2)); or whether the additional agreement to make payments beginning with the date foundations were poured for the proposed shopping ......
-
Scott v. Hussmann Refrigeration, Inc.
...that appellant was to make payments to appellee from proceeds of appellant's refrigeration and other equipment sales. Citing Wilson v. Morrison, 29 Ga. 269 (1859), appellant argues that the note required payment from a particular source, and that since payment from that source was impossibl......
- Mcdaniel v. Walker
-
Wilbanks v. Smith, (No. 17137.)
...difficult to distinguish from the line of rulings that we have felt should control our decision. The cases just referred to are Wilson v. Morrison, 29 Ga. 269, and Corbett v. State, 24 Ga. 287. The effect of the ruling in the first case is that the stipulation that "said note to be paid out......