Hillman v. Farmers State Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hillman v. Farmers State Bank

124 S.E. 553, 32 Ga. App. 633, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 567

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 8, 1924

Docket15685

StatusPublished

This text of 124 S.E. 553 (Hillman v. Farmers State Bank) 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

Hillman v. Farmers State Bank, 124 S.E. 553, 32 Ga. App. 633, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 567 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) We think the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to Mrs. Hill-[635]*635man’s plea. Under the pleadings and the attached resolutions the question as to whether Mrs. Hillman was liable as an original promisor, or was merely a surety, depended upon her real intention as understood by the other parties to the transaction at the time she signed the notes. If at the time she placed her name on the backs of the notes she intended to indorse them as a surety only, and if that intention was known to the other parties to the transaction, she, being a married woman, would not be liable on the notes. This question should have been submitted to the jury, under appropriate instructions. See, in this connection, Atkinson v. Bennet, 103 Ga. 508 (30 S. E. 599); McIntyre v. Moore, 105 Ga. 112 (1), 114 (31 S. E. 144). The decision in Brooke v. Rutland, 15 Ga. App. 26 (82 S. E. 580), cited and relied on by counsel for the defendant in error, is distinguished by its particular facts from this case. The error in striking the plea rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) We think the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to Mrs. Hill-[635]*635man’s plea. Under the pleadings and the attached resolutions the question as to whether Mrs. Hillman was liable as an original promisor, or was merely a surety, depended upon her real intention as understood by the other parties to the transaction at the time she signed the notes. If at the time she placed her name on the backs of the notes she intended to indorse them as a surety only, and if that intention was known to the other parties to the transaction, she, being a married woman, would not be liable on the notes. This question should have been submitted to the jury, under appropriate instructions. See, in this connection, Atkinson v. Bennet, 103 Ga. 508 (30 S. E. 599); McIntyre v. Moore, 105 Ga. 112 (1), 114 (31 S. E. 144). The decision in Brooke v. Rutland, 15 Ga. App. 26 (82 S. E. 580), cited and relied on by counsel for the defendant in error, is distinguished by its particular facts from this case. The error in striking the plea rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 S.E. 553, 32 Ga. App. 633, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hillman-v-farmers-state-bank-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack