Davis v. Griffeth Mule Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Davis v. Griffeth Mule Co.

122 S.E. 631, 32 Ga. App. 86, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 289

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 19, 1924

Docket14836

StatusPublished

This text of 122 S.E. 631 (Davis v. Griffeth Mule 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

Davis v. Griffeth Mule Co., 122 S.E. 631, 32 Ga. App. 86, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 289 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

.Stephens, J.

1. Since the act of 1916 (Ga. L. 1916, p. 48), repealing the statute by which “all titles to property made as part of an usurious contract” were invalidated (Civil Code of 1910, § 3442), a waiver of homestead in a note infected with usury is not void, and the risk of a [87]*87surety on tlie note is not, by reason of the note being secretly infected with usury, increased, and the surety therefore is not released. Laing v. Hinesville Bank, 31 Ga. App. 416 (120 S. E. 799).

Decided April 19, 1924. Clarence E. Adams, for plaintiffs in error. Berry T. Moseley, J. T. Murray, contra.

2. In a suit on a promissory note executed since the passage of the act of 1916, supra, where the only defense interposed by the defendant was that he was a surety and was released by reason of the above-stated facts, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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