Denton v. Butler & Stevens

25 S.E. 624, 99 Ga. 264
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 20, 1896·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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

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

25 S.E. 624 (Denton v. Butler & Stevens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)