Brain v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brain v. Hill

7 S.E.2d 407, 61 Ga. App. 756, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 254

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 24, 1940

Docket28089.

StatusPublished

This text of 7 S.E.2d 407 (Brain v. Hill) 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

Brain v. Hill, 7 S.E.2d 407, 61 Ga. App. 756, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 254 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Sutton, J.

Where one pays an indebtedness on a note on which he and another are. bound as coindorsers, he is subrogated to the rights of the payee, and is also entitled to contribution from the coindorser for one half of the amount so paid. Hull v. Myers, 90 Ga. 674 (16 S. E. 653); Bigby v. Douglas, 123 Ga. 635 (51 S. E. 606); Lamis v. Callianos, 57 Ga. App. 238 (194 S. E. 923). Under the law and the evidence in the present case the trial judge of the civil court' of Atlanta, before whom the case was tried without the intervention of a jury, was authorized to render judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of contribution sued for because of payments made on a note on which the plaintiff and defendant were indorsers. The appellate division of said court *757 properly affirmed the judgment of the trial judge overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

Decided February 24, 1940. Scott Lay Jr., for plaintiff in error. A. C. Corbett, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

¡Stephens, V. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Sutton, J.

Where one pays an indebtedness on a note on which he and another are. bound as coindorsers, he is subrogated to the rights of the payee, and is also entitled to contribution from the coindorser for one half of the amount so paid. Hull v. Myers, 90 Ga. 674 (16 S. E. 653); Bigby v. Douglas, 123 Ga. 635 (51 S. E. 606); Lamis v. Callianos, 57 Ga. App. 238 (194 S. E. 923). Under the law and the evidence in the present case the trial judge of the civil court' of Atlanta, before whom the case was tried without the intervention of a jury, was authorized to render judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of contribution sued for because of payments made on a note on which the plaintiff and defendant were indorsers. The appellate division of said court *757 properly affirmed the judgment of the trial judge overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

Decided February 24, 1940. Scott Lay Jr., for plaintiff in error. A. C. Corbett, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

¡Stephens, V. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 S.E.2d 407, 61 Ga. App. 756, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brain-v-hill-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack