Witherington v. Ware

Georgia Court of Appeals
Witherington v. Ware, 17 Ga. App. 433 (1916)
87 S.E. 603; 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 987
Russell

Witherington v. Ware

Opinion of the Court

Russell, C. J.

The plaintiff’s petition alleged that the defendant was indebted to him in the sum of thirty-five dollars, besides interest, on a note. The note was fully described in the petition, and it was further alleged: “Said note is now lost. A copy of which is hereto attached, as near as possible.” There was no demurrer at the appearance term, and the execution of a substantially similar note was admitted in one of the paragraphs of the answer. Held: Though the petition might have been subject to a timely demurrer, still the action could not properly be dismissed on oral motion, and the court erred in so dismissing it. Civil Code, § 5318; Continental Fertilizer Co. v. Pass, 7 Ga. App. 721 (67 S. E. 1052); Duval v. Barron, 14 Ga. App. 304 (80 S. E. 701). *434“A suit upon a lost note is as effectual as a suit upon an established copy;” and since “the substance of the writing which is the foundation of the action” was set forth, it was not necessary, in the absence of a timely special demurrer, to attach a copy of the writing itself. Social Benevolent Society v. Holmes, 127 Ga. 586, 592 (56 S. E. 775); Gonackey v. General Accident Assurance Corporation, 6 Ga. App. 381, 384, 385 (65 S. E. 53). Cf. Lynah v. Citizens & Southern Bank, 136 Ga. 344 (71 S. E. 469). Judgment reversed.

Decided January 6, 1916.Complaint; from city court of Dublin — Judge Hicks. March 12, 1915.8. P. New, for plaintiff in error. Hal B. Wimberly, contra.

Reference

Full Case Name
WITHERINGTON v. WARE
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published