Hames v. Hames

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hames v. Hames

140 S.E.2d 844, 220 Ga. 595, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 568

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 4, 1965

Docket22756

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 S.E.2d 844 (Hames v. Hames) 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

Hames v. Hames, 140 S.E.2d 844, 220 Ga. 595, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 568 (Ga. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Qtjillian, Justice.

The only question presented by the assignment of error in the present case is whether the Act of 1941, as amended (Ga. L. 1941, pp. 487-489; Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 313, 314), embodied in Code Ann. § 67-1308, is applicable to a note and security deed given to secure the same where the note matured before the Act, according to its provisions, became effective as a statute of the State. This precise question is answered in the negative in the case of Todd v. Morgan, 215 Ga. 220, 221 (2) (109 SE2d 803). The Todd case is controlling here.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Submitted January 11, 1965 Decided February 4, 1965. G. W. Langford, for plaintiff in error. Shaw, Stolz & Fletcher, contra.

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

Qtjillian, Justice.

The only question presented by the assignment of error in the present case is whether the Act of 1941, as amended (Ga. L. 1941, pp. 487-489; Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 313, 314), embodied in Code Ann. § 67-1308, is applicable to a note and security deed given to secure the same where the note matured before the Act, according to its provisions, became effective as a statute of the State. This precise question is answered in the negative in the case of Todd v. Morgan, 215 Ga. 220, 221 (2) (109 SE2d 803). The Todd case is controlling here.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Submitted January 11, 1965 Decided February 4, 1965. G. W. Langford, for plaintiff in error. Shaw, Stolz & Fletcher, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E.2d 844, 220 Ga. 595, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hames-v-hames-ga-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack