Clements v. National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Clements v. National Bank

61 S.E. 146, 4 Ga. App. 270, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 263

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 22, 1908

Docket970

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 61 S.E. 146 (Clements v. National Bank) 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

Clements v. National Bank, 61 S.E. 146, 4 Ga. App. 270, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 263 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. A sued B, O, and D, as makers of a promissory note, also claiming attorneys’ fees, and alleging the statutory notice therefor. B answered, admitting the execution of the note as principal maker, with C and D as sureties, and his indebtedness for principal and interest, but denied the allegation of notice' of the claim for attorneys’ fees. C and D made no defense. Judgment was rendered by the court against B for principal and interest, and against C and D for principal, interest, and attorneys’ fees. Held, the judgment was erroneous as to the attorneys’ fees against O and D. If in fact they were all joint principals, they were equally liable.

% If C and D were sureties for B, no judgment could be lawfully rendered for a greater amount against the sureties than against the principal. The judgment for attorneys’ fees against O and D should be written off.

Affirmed, xoith direction.

Complaint, from city court of Nashville — Judge Peeples. December 10, 1907.

Submitted February 25, Decided April 22, 1908. J. H. Powell, Watts Powell, for plaintiffs in error. R. D. Smith, R. S. Foy, contra.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. A sued B, O, and D, as makers of a promissory note, also claiming attorneys’ fees, and alleging the statutory notice therefor. B answered, admitting the execution of the note as principal maker, with C and D as sureties, and his indebtedness for principal and interest, but denied the allegation of notice' of the claim for attorneys’ fees. C and D made no defense. Judgment was rendered by the court against B for principal and interest, and against C and D for principal, interest, and attorneys’ fees. Held, the judgment was erroneous as to the attorneys’ fees against O and D. If in fact they were all joint principals, they were equally liable.

% If C and D were sureties for B, no judgment could be lawfully rendered for a greater amount against the sureties than against the principal. The judgment for attorneys’ fees against O and D should be written off.

Affirmed, xoith direction.

Complaint, from city court of Nashville — Judge Peeples. December 10, 1907.

Submitted February 25, Decided April 22, 1908. J. H. Powell, Watts Powell, for plaintiffs in error. R. D. Smith, R. S. Foy, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 S.E. 146, 4 Ga. App. 270, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clements-v-national-bank-gactapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack