Daniel v. Browder-Manget Co.

76 S.E. 166, 11 Ga. App. 789, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 181
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 12, 1912·No. 4311·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. Since one who signed a promissory note apparently as an indorser may, by parol evidence, be shown to have been in fact a surety (James v. Calder, 7 Ga. App. 707, 28 S. E. 622), a petition in a suit upon a promissory note, brought against A as maker and B as surety, in the county of the latter’s residence, is not demurrable upon the ground that it appears from the petition that the maker does not reside in the county wherein the suit was brought, although, from a copy of the note attached to the petition, it appears that B signed the note as indorser. Lumpkin v. Calloway, 101 Ga. 226 (28 S. E. 622).

2. There was no error in striking the plea to the jurisdiction, or in any of the other rulings complained of. Judgment affirmed.

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

Daniel v. Browder-Manget Co., 76 S.E. 166, 11 Ga. App. 789, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 181 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

76 S.E. 166 (Daniel v. Browder-Manget Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Federal Reserve Bank v. Lane
132 S.E. 247 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)