Cadow v. Dixson Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cadow v. Dixson Co.

84 S.E.2d 130, 90 Ga. App. 717, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 792

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 1, 1954

Docket35295

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 S.E.2d 130 (Cadow v. Dixson Co.) 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

Cadow v. Dixson Co., 84 S.E.2d 130, 90 Ga. App. 717, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 792 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

1. “In order to render a promissory note a sealed instrument, it must be so recited in the body of the note. The mere addition of a seal after the signature of the maker is insufficient.” Jackson v. Augusta Southern R. Co., 125 Ga. 801 (54 S. E. 697); Echols v. Phillips, 112 Ga. 700 (37 S. E. 977).

2. The law does not require that an agent’s authority to execute on behalf of his principal a promissory note which is not a sealed instrument should be in writing. Taylor v. Johnson, 18 Ga. App. 161 (2) (89 S. E. 77); Foster v. Cochran, 89 Ga. 466 (15 S. E. 551).

3. It follows from the above that an action on a simple promissory note, copy of which was attached to the petition as an exhibit and which was signed as follows, “Hotel Griffin by Wm. S. Cadow By M. A. Cadow,” was not subject to general demurrer, as contended, for the reason that the authority of M. A. Cadow to sign as agent for the principal is not shown by the pleadings to have been in writing. The trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

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