Diversified Growth Corp. v. Equitable Leasing Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Diversified Growth Corp. v. Equitable Leasing Corp.

231 S.E.2d 505, 140 Ga. App. 511, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1541

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 19, 1976

Docket52867

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 S.E.2d 505 (Diversified Growth Corp. v. Equitable Leasing Corp.) 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

Diversified Growth Corp. v. Equitable Leasing Corp., 231 S.E.2d 505, 140 Ga. App. 511, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1541 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff brought suit to recover on three written contracts for the lease of personalty. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff was entered and defendant appeals. Held:

Defendant complains that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the original contracts on which this claim was based. The objection made was that the execution had not been proven as plaintiff had not produced a subscribing witness as required by Code § 38-706. The statute requires that the subscribing witness "shall be produced in all cases” except in five cases of which none apply here. While plaintiff did not comply with this rule of evidence, the contracts were nonetheless admissible, for two reasons. One, the defense of denial of the execution of the contract, or a plea of non est factum, must be made under oath as required by Code § 20-801. Defendant’s pleadings were not under oath. Where a proper plea of non est factum has not been filed, proof of execution of the instrument on which suit is based is not necessary. Lanier v. Waddell, 83 Ga. App. 423 (64 SE2d 79).

Judgment affirmed.

Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff brought suit to recover on three written contracts for the lease of personalty. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff was entered and defendant appeals. Held:

Defendant complains that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the original contracts on which this claim was based. The objection made was that the execution had not been proven as plaintiff had not produced a subscribing witness as required by Code § 38-706. The statute requires that the subscribing witness "shall be produced in all cases” except in five cases of which none apply here. While plaintiff did not comply with this rule of evidence, the contracts were nonetheless admissible, for two reasons. One, the defense of denial of the execution of the contract, or a plea of non est factum, must be made under oath as required by Code § 20-801. Defendant’s pleadings were not under oath. Where a proper plea of non est factum has not been filed, proof of execution of the instrument on which suit is based is not necessary. Lanier v. Waddell, 83 Ga. App. 423 (64 SE2d 79).

Judgment affirmed.

Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 S.E.2d 505, 140 Ga. App. 511, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diversified-growth-corp-v-equitable-leasing-corp-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack