Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

102 Ga. 170

Morrison v. Morrison

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided August 5, 1897

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1897-08-05

<p>1. There was no error in denying a continuance because of the absence of documentary evidence which by the exercise of ordinary diligence might have been procured before the time of the trial; nor because of the allowance of an amendment to the petition, praying for a recovery of the interest due upon promissory notes sued upon in such petition, the same not, however, originally including a prayer for such interest.</p> <p>2. It was not improper, in a petition brought to recover upon promissory notes payable generally “after date,” to allege that the same were payable on demand.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1897-08-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1934

4 state decisions

2018971900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cobb, J.

¶1The official report states the facts.

¶21. A continuance was asked in this case, because the counsel for the defendant did not have in his possession at the time of the trial certain documentary evidence, consisting of a transcript of a record from the courts of another State, which' it was claimed would have established one of the defenses relied on. This evidence could have been easily obtained in time for the trial by the exercise of the sligh test diligence; and as no effort was made to secure the transcript until it was too late to obtain it, there was no error, in refusing the continuance. _ '

¶3Where in a suit upon promissory notes the allegations of the petition were such as probably to limit the recovery by the plaintiff to the principal of the notes sued on, and the notes offered in evidence bore interest which had not been declared for, there was no error in allowing the plaintiff to amend his petition by adding a prayer for the recovery of such interest.

¶42. A'promissory note payable “after date,” with no other time for payment stated, is payable on demand, and an allegation to that effect in the petition brought on such notes was proper. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices'concurring.
/102/ga/170 · .json · Public domain