Denton v. Butler & Stevens

25 S.E. 624, 99 Ga. 264
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 20, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 25 S.E. 624 (Denton v. Butler & Stevens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Denton v. Butler & Stevens, 25 S.E. 624, 99 Ga. 264 (Ga. 1896).

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. A surety upou a promissory note secretly' tainted with, usury, of which fact he had no knowledge, is discharg.ed from liability if it contained a waiver of homestead. This is so because the usury made the waiver void and thus, rendered the surety’s risk greater than it would otherwise have-been. Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. 115; Harrington v. Findley, Id. 385; Howard v. Johnson, 91 Ga. 319.

2. In an action on such a note it is incumbent upon the plaintiff,, in order to hold the surety liable, to prove affirmatively that, he signed the note with knowledge of the usury.

Judgment r&wrsed.

■Leon A. Wilson>, for plaintiff in error. John C. McDonald, contra.

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

Related

Middlebrooks v. Phillips
146 S.E. 653 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Washington Loan & Banking Co. v. Holliday
107 S.E. 370 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
McWhorter v. Swilley
95 S.E. 720 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Bank of Omega v. Ford
93 S.E. 106 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Hancock v. Bank of Tifton
65 S.E. 784 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)
Whilden v. Milledgeville Banking Co.
59 S.E. 336 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
First National Bank v. McEntire
37 S.E. 381 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Prather v. Smith
28 S.E. 857 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 S.E. 624, 99 Ga. 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denton-v-butler-stevens-ga-1896.