Chewning v. Tucker

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Chewning v. Tucker

88 S.E. 593, 17 Ga. App. 768

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1916

Docket7057

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 593 (Chewning v. Tucker) 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

Chewning v. Tucker, 88 S.E. 593, 17 Ga. App. 768 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. “A promise to do certain acts or perform certain services, made to induce the execution of a promissory note, though made with no intention of performance, is not such a fraud as will authorize the admission of parol evidence thereof, to vary the terms of a note which contains no such condition or stipulation.” Thomson v. McLaughlin, 13 Ga. App. 334 (79 S. E. 182).

2. The uncontradicted testimony shows that the note sued upon was given in payment of the first premium on a policy of insurance, which was still in the possession of the defendant, who himself testified that he was then insured and was then in possession of the policy for which the note was given. Under the rulings made in Thomson v. McLaughlin, supra, and Boykin v. Franklin Life Insurance Co., 14 Ga. App. 666 (82 S. E. 60), the judge of the superior court did not err in sustaining the certiorari and rendering final judgment in the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Russell, C. J., absent.

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

Wade, J.

1. “A promise to do certain acts or perform certain services, made to induce the execution of a promissory note, though made with no intention of performance, is not such a fraud as will authorize the admission of parol evidence thereof, to vary the terms of a note which contains no such condition or stipulation.” Thomson v. McLaughlin, 13 Ga. App. 334 (79 S. E. 182).

2. The uncontradicted testimony shows that the note sued upon was given in payment of the first premium on a policy of insurance, which was still in the possession of the defendant, who himself testified that he was then insured and was then in possession of the policy for which the note was given. Under the rulings made in Thomson v. McLaughlin, supra, and Boykin v. Franklin Life Insurance Co., 14 Ga. App. 666 (82 S. E. 60), the judge of the superior court did not err in sustaining the certiorari and rendering final judgment in the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Russell, C. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 593, 17 Ga. App. 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chewning-v-tucker-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack