Harden v. Harden

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harden v. Harden

105 S.E. 869, 26 Ga. App. 192, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 60

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 25, 1921

Docket11916

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 105 S.E. 869 (Harden v. Harden) 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

Harden v. Harden, 105 S.E. 869, 26 Ga. App. 192, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 60 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was sued on certain promissory notes which she and her husband jointly signed. There were no [196]*196indications on tbe notes that she signed them as surety only, but she pleaded that she signed them as surety for her husband and that the contracts, under the law, were unenforceable against her. The evidence upon the trial amply authorized a finding that the money obtained upon' the notes was borrowed by the defendant and her husband for their joint benefit and that she was liable therefor. The charge of the court was a full, fair, and correct presentation of the law of the case, and was not subject to any of the exceptions taken. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was sued on certain promissory notes which she and her husband jointly signed. There were no [196]*196indications on tbe notes that she signed them as surety only, but she pleaded that she signed them as surety for her husband and that the contracts, under the law, were unenforceable against her. The evidence upon the trial amply authorized a finding that the money obtained upon' the notes was borrowed by the defendant and her husband for their joint benefit and that she was liable therefor. The charge of the court was a full, fair, and correct presentation of the law of the case, and was not subject to any of the exceptions taken. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.E. 869, 26 Ga. App. 192, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harden-v-harden-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack