46 Ga. App. 268 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1933
'(After stating the foregoing facts.)
The first headnote requires no elaboration. The previous litigation was a mere personal action by the claimant against certain defendants, among whom was the plaintiff in fi. fa., and sought merely a personal judgment against the defendants named. Accordingly, it did not pertain to the same cause of action as that involved in the instant claim case, under the rules set forth by the first headnote. Not being the same cause of action, the plaintiff in fi. fa. could not be bound under the doctrine of res judicata.
The alleged newly discovered evidence consisted of a financial statement, alleged to have been prepared by the witness Simp
The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.