Amason v. Bank of Tignall

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Amason v. Bank of Tignall

134 S.E. 115, 35 Ga. App. 509, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 960

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1926

Docket17023

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 S.E. 115 (Amason v. Bank of Tignall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amason v. Bank of Tignall, 134 S.E. 115, 35 Ga. App. 509, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 960 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

The plaintiff bank sued E. M. and Mrs. O. R. Amason upon a promissory note for the principal sum of $1080, claiming attorney’s fees. The first named defendant filed no plea. The other filed a plea in which she set up substantially the following facts: that the defendants gave the note; that the defendant filing the plea had previously to the present note stood security for [511]*511the other defendant at the plaintiff bank for $250; that the note for $1080, here sued upon,, was sent to her by mail, with a letter requesting this defendant to sign the same in renewal; that the defendant, thinking that the note sent was in renewal of the'$250 note, signed the same and returned it, receiving nothing therefor except cancellation of the former note; and that there was no consideration whatever for the note sued upon except the cancellation of the $250 note. She further set up that owing to a defect in her eyesight she was unable to read, and that she was eighty-three years of age and unable, on account of her physical and mental afflictions, to attend to any business. She prayed that the judgment against her be limited to the said $250. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike this plea, on the ground of its insufficiency; which was done; and both defendants filed exceptions.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jenkins, P. J.

The plaintiff bank sued E. M. and Mrs. O. R. Amason upon a promissory note for the principal sum of $1080, claiming attorney’s fees. The first named defendant filed no plea. The other filed a plea in which she set up substantially the following facts: that the defendants gave the note; that the defendant filing the plea had previously to the present note stood security for [511]*511the other defendant at the plaintiff bank for $250; that the note for $1080, here sued upon,, was sent to her by mail, with a letter requesting this defendant to sign the same in renewal; that the defendant, thinking that the note sent was in renewal of the'$250 note, signed the same and returned it, receiving nothing therefor except cancellation of the former note; and that there was no consideration whatever for the note sued upon except the cancellation of the $250 note. She further set up that owing to a defect in her eyesight she was unable to read, and that she was eighty-three years of age and unable, on account of her physical and mental afflictions, to attend to any business. She prayed that the judgment against her be limited to the said $250. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike this plea, on the ground of its insufficiency; which was done; and both defendants filed exceptions.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 115, 35 Ga. App. 509, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amason-v-bank-of-tignall-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack