Bedingfield v. Lamb

91 S.E. 793, 19 Ga. App. 486, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 182
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 16, 1917·No. 7845·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

A promise to answer for the debt of another must be in writing, in order to bind the promisor. Civil Code (1910), § 3222. This case falls squarely within the rule laid down in Harris v. Paulk, 10 Ga. App. 334 (73 S. E. 430), and Foote v. Reece, 17 Ga. App. 799 (88 S. E. 689), and is distinguished by the facts from the eases of Evans v. Griffin, 1 Ga. App. 327 (57 S. E. 921), and Palmetto Manufacturing Co. v. Parker, 123 Ga. 798 (51 S. E. 714), and Ferst v. Bank of Waycross, 111 Ga. 229 (36 S. E. 773). Under the facts the court did not err in sustaining the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and George, J., concur.

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

Bedingfield v. Lamb, 91 S.E. 793, 19 Ga. App. 486, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 182 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

91 S.E. 793 (Bedingfield v. Lamb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Butler v. Godley
181 S.E. 494 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Scheuer Bros. v. Hushinsky
140 S.E. 394 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)