54 Ga. 486 | Ga. | 1875
Lead Opinion
This was a bill filed by the complainant, Cooper, in the superior court of' Chattooga county, against Alman, residing in that county, and Sloan, residing in the county of Chat-ham, in which the complainant alleged that he, Alman and Sloan, in consequence of a large quantity of grain which Cooper and Alman had purchased under an agreement with Sloan, having become mixed together at the mill where it was stored for the purpose of being manufactured into flour, the parties entered into a new agreement, by which they were to unite their stock of grain; that Cooper and Alman should continue to purchase grain, Sloan furnishing the.money, and to keep the books, accounts of shipping, sales, etc., and to divide the profits equally between them, after deducting necessary expenses of milling, shipping, sales, etc. The complainant also alleges that he had advanced, out of his individual funds, the sum of $997 53 for the purchase and transportation of wheat, and $173 25 on account of flour purchased; and prays in his bill that the defendants, Sloan and Alman, may account with him for such sum as may be found to be due by them respectively, and to abide by such judgment or decree as should be made against them, or either of them. There was a demurrer to the bill by Sloan for want of jurisdiction of the court, as to him, on the ground that no substantial relief was prayed against Alman, who resided in Chattooga county where the suit was instituted. The demurrer was overruled and a writ of error brought to this court, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, and the judgment of the court below affirmed. The defendant, Sloan, answered the bill, and it was taken pro confesso as. to Alman, he being unable to speak or write by reason of a stroke of paralysis. On the trial of the case the jury found a verdict against Sloan for $3,051 95, upon which a judgment was entered in the common law form, but was not signed by the chancellor andentered on the minutes of the court. An execution was issued thereon, and levied on the defendant’s property, who made an affidavit of illegality thereto, on the
Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
1. Where a bill in equity was filed in Chattooga county by one of three partners against the other two, one of the latter living in Chattooga and the other in Chatham, seeking a settlement of the partnership affairs, and it appeared from the statements in the bill that the assets were all in the hands of the partner residing in Chatham:
Held, that the bill was rightly filed in Chattooga. The settlement of the affairs of the partnership by a decree fixing the interest of the complainant in the assets, is a binding decree against both defendants, and it is immaterial in whose hands the assets are. The settlement, as between all the partners, of the complainant’s interest, is substantial relief, so as to give jurisdiction in Chattooga.
2. Whilst the judgment of a court that it has jurisdiction, is not conclusive between the parties, if the question arise on the face of the record, yet if that judgment be objected to and carried before a court having jurisdiction to correct the errors of the court making such judgment, and the same be affirmed by the appellate court, the parties are concluded and cannot deny the validity of such judgment.
3. Where a question of jurisdiction depends on facts, which appear in evidence or are admitted on the trial, the judgment of the court that it has jurisdiction, is conclusive between the parties, unless it be excepted to and reversed.