Davis v. Joyner

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Davis v. Joyner

107 S.E. 551, 27 Ga. App. 132, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 731

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 6, 1921

Docket12277

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 551 (Davis v. Joyner) 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. Joyner, 107 S.E. 551, 27 Ga. App. 132, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 731 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. A promissory note given for the purchase of a horse contained the statement that the horse was bought by the maker “ after a full inspection and without warranty (express or implied), and without any representation whatever.” Held: The maker was bound by this statement unless he showed that he could not read, and was for that reason imposed upon, or that the note was signed under some emergency which excused the failure to read, or that the failure to read was brought about by some fraud or misleading device of the payee of the note. Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 122 Ga. 802 (50 S. E. 915). The evidence failed to establish either one of these defenses.

2. No error of law appears, and the evidence supported the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Hill, J.

1. A promissory note given for the purchase of a horse contained the statement that the horse was bought by the maker “ after a full inspection and without warranty (express or implied), and without any representation whatever.” Held: The maker was bound by this statement unless he showed that he could not read, and was for that reason imposed upon, or that the note was signed under some emergency which excused the failure to read, or that the failure to read was brought about by some fraud or misleading device of the payee of the note. Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 122 Ga. 802 (50 S. E. 915). The evidence failed to establish either one of these defenses.

2. No error of law appears, and the evidence supported the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 551, 27 Ga. App. 132, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-joyner-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack