Dillard v. Holtzendorf

Supreme Court of Georgia

Dillard v. Holtzendorf

78 S.E. 414, 140 Ga. 17, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 11

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 78 S.E. 414 (Dillard v. Holtzendorf) 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

Dillard v. Holtzendorf, 78 S.E. 414, 140 Ga. 17, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 11 (Ga. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, P. J.

1. A plea of non est factum may be established by circumstantial as well as direct testimony. Where the payee and maker of a note are brothers, and the suit is by the former against the administrator of the latter, and it is admitted that the maker did not sign the note, but that the payee signed the name of the maker, and where it is contended by the payee that the maker acknowledged its execution in the presence of the payee’s son-in-law, and that the consideration of the note was medical attention given to the maker by the payee, a physician, while his brother was' on a visit to him, it is competent to show that the value of the medical service alleged to have been rendered was grossly disproportionate to the amount of the note, as one of the circumstances tending to show that the maker, who was literate and not shown to have been incapacitated' from signing his name, did not authorize or acknowledge the execution of the note. Testimony that physicians in the locality of the venue of the suit were accustomed to charge certain fees for visits to patients was not inadmissible on the ground that such testimony was irrelevant and immaterial; no point being made that it did not appear that the charges in the two localities were similar.

2. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Evans, P. J.

1. A plea of non est factum may be established by circumstantial as well as direct testimony. Where the payee and maker of a note are brothers, and the suit is by the former against the administrator of the latter, and it is admitted that the maker did not sign the note, but that the payee signed the name of the maker, and where it is contended by the payee that the maker acknowledged its execution in the presence of the payee’s son-in-law, and that the consideration of the note was medical attention given to the maker by the payee, a physician, while his brother was' on a visit to him, it is competent to show that the value of the medical service alleged to have been rendered was grossly disproportionate to the amount of the note, as one of the circumstances tending to show that the maker, who was literate and not shown to have been incapacitated' from signing his name, did not authorize or acknowledge the execution of the note. Testimony that physicians in the locality of the venue of the suit were accustomed to charge certain fees for visits to patients was not inadmissible on the ground that such testimony was irrelevant and immaterial; no point being made that it did not appear that the charges in the two localities were similar.

2. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 414, 140 Ga. 17, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillard-v-holtzendorf-ga-1913.

Opinion

2. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack