Exchange Bank v. Harper

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Exchange Bank v. Harper

134 S.E. 789, 35 Ga. App. 786, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1121

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 29, 1926

Docket16857

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 134 S.E. 789 (Exchange Bank v. Harper) 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

Exchange Bank v. Harper, 134 S.E. 789, 35 Ga. App. 786, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1121 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. A promissory noto, signed by two parties as makers, which, in the body thereof, provides, “We promise to pay to the order of ourselves” a stipulated sum of money-upon a certain date, etc., is a joint, and not a severable, obligation of the makers. This is true notwithstanding that elsewhere in the -note certain waivers as to homestead, exemption, and bankruptcy, and as to notice of protest, are made by “each” party to the note, “whether maker, indorser, surety, guarantor or other party,” and notwithstanding that the note provides that the bankruptcy or insolvency of “either of the parties” to the note will at the option of the holder operate to mature the note.

2. Although an instrument purporting to be a promissory note payable to “ourselves” does not become a note until indorsed and delivered by the makers, their indorsement does not operate to convert them into sureties or indorsers, and does not render the obligation severable.

3. The note sued on being a joint note, and the suit being against one of the makers only, a demurrer upon the ground of nonjoinder was properly sustained. Graham v. Marks, 95 Ga. 38 (21 S. E. 986).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. A promissory noto, signed by two parties as makers, which, in the body thereof, provides, “We promise to pay to the order of ourselves” a stipulated sum of money-upon a certain date, etc., is a joint, and not a severable, obligation of the makers. This is true notwithstanding that elsewhere in the -note certain waivers as to homestead, exemption, and bankruptcy, and as to notice of protest, are made by “each” party to the note, “whether maker, indorser, surety, guarantor or other party,” and notwithstanding that the note provides that the bankruptcy or insolvency of “either of the parties” to the note will at the option of the holder operate to mature the note.

2. Although an instrument purporting to be a promissory note payable to “ourselves” does not become a note until indorsed and delivered by the makers, their indorsement does not operate to convert them into sureties or indorsers, and does not render the obligation severable.

3. The note sued on being a joint note, and the suit being against one of the makers only, a demurrer upon the ground of nonjoinder was properly sustained. Graham v. Marks, 95 Ga. 38 (21 S. E. 986).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 789, 35 Ga. App. 786, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exchange-bank-v-harper-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack