Franks v. Hamilton

Supreme Court of Georgia

Franks v. Hamilton

29 Ga. 139

DecidedJune 15, 1859

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ga. 139 (Franks v. Hamilton) 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

Franks v. Hamilton, 29 Ga. 139 (Ga. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

— Benning J.

By the Court.

delivering the opinion.

Ought the Court to have granted the motion for a nonsuit ?. We think so.

We think, that the proof failed to show a breach of the condition of the bond. The condition was, that the bond was to be void, if the obligors paid the note, “ so, that, in no event, it” should “ be collected, or attempted to be collected, from” the endorser, Hamilton. A collection of the note from Hamilton, or an attempt at its collection from him, was therefore, essential to a breach of the condition. Does the evidence show either ? It does not. It merely shows, that the note was put into the hands of attorneys for collection. It does not show, that the attorneys had collected it from Hamilton, or had attempted to do so. It rather shows the contrary; [142]*142for it shows, that, when the note was put in the hands of the attorneys for collection, Hamilton was out of the State, a resident of Mississippi.

Judgment reversed.

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

— Benning J.

By the Court.

delivering the opinion.

Ought the Court to have granted the motion for a nonsuit ?. We think so.

We think, that the proof failed to show a breach of the condition of the bond. The condition was, that the bond was to be void, if the obligors paid the note, “ so, that, in no event, it” should “ be collected, or attempted to be collected, from” the endorser, Hamilton. A collection of the note from Hamilton, or an attempt at its collection from him, was therefore, essential to a breach of the condition. Does the evidence show either ? It does not. It merely shows, that the note was put into the hands of attorneys for collection. It does not show, that the attorneys had collected it from Hamilton, or had attempted to do so. It rather shows the contrary; [142]*142for it shows, that, when the note was put in the hands of the attorneys for collection, Hamilton was out of the State, a resident of Mississippi.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ga. 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franks-v-hamilton-ga-1859.