Barfield v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Barfield v. Smith

157 S.E. 121, 42 Ga. App. 638, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 80

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 13, 1931

Docket20666

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.E. 121 (Barfield v. Smith) 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

Barfield v. Smith, 157 S.E. 121, 42 Ga. App. 638, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 80 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. “In an action upon a promissory note, to entitle the defendant to the opening and conclusion, he must, before the plaintiff has introduced any evidence, admit in his written plea the execution ,of the note sued upon and that the plaintiff is the legal holder thereof.” Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Brantley, 20 Ga. App. 774 (93 S. E. 237) ; Coker v. Citizens Bank, 35 Ga. App. 595 (2) (134 S. E. 355). Mere oral admissions made in open court are not sufficient for this purpose. Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812 (34 S. E. 168) ; DuBignon v. Wright, 122 Ga. 263 (50 S. E. 65).

2. In the instant suit on two promissory notes alleged to have been held by the plaintiff under several transfers from the payees, the defendant in his plea admitted signing both the notes, but denied that one of them was ever delivered, and did not admit ownership of either note in the plaintiff. The court therefore erred in allowing the defendant to open and conclude, and, the verdict for the defendant not being demanded, the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. G. G. Anderson, for plaintiff. John J. Jones, E. M. Price, for defendant.

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

Bell, J.

1. “In an action upon a promissory note, to entitle the defendant to the opening and conclusion, he must, before the plaintiff has introduced any evidence, admit in his written plea the execution ,of the note sued upon and that the plaintiff is the legal holder thereof.” Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Brantley, 20 Ga. App. 774 (93 S. E. 237) ; Coker v. Citizens Bank, 35 Ga. App. 595 (2) (134 S. E. 355). Mere oral admissions made in open court are not sufficient for this purpose. Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812 (34 S. E. 168) ; DuBignon v. Wright, 122 Ga. 263 (50 S. E. 65).

2. In the instant suit on two promissory notes alleged to have been held by the plaintiff under several transfers from the payees, the defendant in his plea admitted signing both the notes, but denied that one of them was ever delivered, and did not admit ownership of either note in the plaintiff. The court therefore erred in allowing the defendant to open and conclude, and, the verdict for the defendant not being demanded, the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. G. G. Anderson, for plaintiff. John J. Jones, E. M. Price, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.E. 121, 42 Ga. App. 638, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barfield-v-smith-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack