Woodson v. Jones

• Decision Date: 06 November 1893
• Citation: 19 S.E. 60,92 Ga. 662
• Parties: WOODSON v. JONES.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

19 S.E. 60

92 Ga. 662

WOODSON v. JONES.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 6, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under the evidence act of 1889, the maker of a negotiable promissory note is a competent witness in his own favor to prove payment thereof to the payee before the note was transferred, although the payee has since died; the action being by the indorsee of the note, and the personal representative of the payee not being a party thereto on either side.

2. The rule that the grounds of objection to evidence which were urged at the trial must appear applies to this case. There was no error in denying a new trial.

Error from city court of Atlanta; I. P. Westmoreland, Judge.

Action on a promissory note by W. D. Woodson against J. H. Jones. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

King & Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

Alex. C. King, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS J.

W. D Woodson sued Jones upon his promissory note, payable to the order of C. D. Woodson, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and payment to C. D Woodson, and that the note was not the property of the plaintiff. There was a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled and he excepted.

It is complained that after it was shown that C. D. Woodson, the original payee, was dead, the court below, over the objection of the plaintiff, permitted the defendant to testify in his own behalf to transactions solely between himself and the deceased payee, to wit, that he paid the note to the latter after its maturity, and before it was transferred to the plaintiff, without requiring its surrender, and without taking any receipt. This testimony, it was contended, was illegal and inadmissible, under the evidence act of 1889, § 1, subsecs, a, b, by which it is provided that "where any suit is instituted or defended by a person insane at time of trial, or by the personal representative of a deceased person, the opposite party shall not be admitted to testify in his own favor against said insane or deceased person, as to transactions or communications with such insane or deceased person," and that "where any suit is instituted or defended by partners, persons jointly liable, or interested, the opposite party shall not be admitted to testify in his own favor as to transactions or communications solely with an insane or deceased partner, or person jointly liable or interested, and not also with a survivor...