Baird v. Hill

Supreme Court of Georgia

Baird v. Hill

80 S.E. 281, 141 Ga. 15, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 286

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 80 S.E. 281 (Baird v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baird v. Hill, 80 S.E. 281, 141 Ga. 15, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 286 (Ga. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, J.

Where the defendant in a suit upon a promissory note admits facts which make a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, and sets up that the note was given merely for accommodation to the plaintiff, and that there was no other consideration for it, and at the trial the [16]*16plaintiff introduces in evidence the note sued on,' and the defendant introduces evidence to establish the averments of the answer but makes no request to open and conclude the argument until the testimony of both sides has been closed, it is not error for the court to refuse the request and allow the plaintiff the opening and concluding argument. Southern Railway Co. v. Gresham, 114 Ga. 183 (39 S. B. 883); Mitchem v. Allen, 128 Ga. 407 (57 S. E. 721).

November 13, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. December 4, 1912.

Munday & Cornwell, for plaintiff in error. T. E. Goodwin, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck, J.

Where the defendant in a suit upon a promissory note admits facts which make a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, and sets up that the note was given merely for accommodation to the plaintiff, and that there was no other consideration for it, and at the trial the [16]*16plaintiff introduces in evidence the note sued on,' and the defendant introduces evidence to establish the averments of the answer but makes no request to open and conclude the argument until the testimony of both sides has been closed, it is not error for the court to refuse the request and allow the plaintiff the opening and concluding argument. Southern Railway Co. v. Gresham, 114 Ga. 183 (39 S. B. 883); Mitchem v. Allen, 128 Ga. 407 (57 S. E. 721).

November 13, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. December 4, 1912.

Munday & Cornwell, for plaintiff in error. T. E. Goodwin, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.E. 281, 141 Ga. 15, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baird-v-hill-ga-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack