Hastey v. Roberts

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hastey v. Roberts

100 S.E. 569, 149 Ga. 479, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 277

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 15, 1919

DocketNo. 1396

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 569 (Hastey v. Roberts) 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

Hastey v. Roberts, 100 S.E. 569, 149 Ga. 479, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 277 (Ga. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

1. A stockholder or officer, though incompetent to take an acknowledgment of a mortgage on realty as a notary, because he is a stockholder or officer of the mortgagee corporation, is not incompetent as a non-official witness to the signature of the mortgage. Peagler v. Davis, 143 Ga. 11 (84 S. E. 59), Ann. Cas. 1917A, 232).

2. Where a mortgage on realty was signed “Trustees North Ga. Col. School (Seal). H. A. Burge, Cor. Sect. (Seal),” it was erroneous to admit the same in evidence on the trial of a claim to the property, over timely objection that “there was no evidence shown where II. A. Burge had any authority to sign any mortgage,” the evidence failing to disclose any such authority. Civil Code, § 3570. Glisson v. Weil, 117 Ga. 842 (45 S. E. 221). It was not shown that “Trustees North Ga. Col. School” was incorporated, nor does its name imply such.

{a} Endorsed on the note and mortgage were several names, the last of which was “II. A. Biirge with Power of Attorney.” The power of attorney is not included in the record. A.t most this could only indicate an ordinary individual endorsement.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. E. W. Coleman, for plaintiff in error. John S. Wood and George D. Anderson, contra.

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

Gilbert, J.

1. A stockholder or officer, though incompetent to take an acknowledgment of a mortgage on realty as a notary, because he is a stockholder or officer of the mortgagee corporation, is not incompetent as a non-official witness to the signature of the mortgage. Peagler v. Davis, 143 Ga. 11 (84 S. E. 59), Ann. Cas. 1917A, 232).

2. Where a mortgage on realty was signed “Trustees North Ga. Col. School (Seal). H. A. Burge, Cor. Sect. (Seal),” it was erroneous to admit the same in evidence on the trial of a claim to the property, over timely objection that “there was no evidence shown where II. A. Burge had any authority to sign any mortgage,” the evidence failing to disclose any such authority. Civil Code, § 3570. Glisson v. Weil, 117 Ga. 842 (45 S. E. 221). It was not shown that “Trustees North Ga. Col. School” was incorporated, nor does its name imply such.

{a} Endorsed on the note and mortgage were several names, the last of which was “II. A. Biirge with Power of Attorney.” The power of attorney is not included in the record. A.t most this could only indicate an ordinary individual endorsement.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. E. W. Coleman, for plaintiff in error. John S. Wood and George D. Anderson, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 569, 149 Ga. 479, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hastey-v-roberts-ga-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack