Hogan v. Brown & Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hogan v. Brown & Co.

37 S.E. 880, 112 Ga. 662, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 41

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 26, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 37 S.E. 880 (Hogan v. Brown & Co.) 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

Hogan v. Brown & Co., 37 S.E. 880, 112 Ga. 662, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 41 (Ga. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

1. One who executed and delivered a promissory note in renewal of a balance due upon a like note previously given for the purchase of personalty, and who at the time of giving the second note knew that this personalty was when purchased defective or worthless, was not, in defense to an action on that note, entitled to set up that the consideration thereof had failed because of the defectiveness or worthlessness of the property. See Atlanta etc. Co. v. Hutchinson, 109 Ga. 550, and cases cited on page 552.

2. The foregoing disposes of the only question presented by the petition for certiorari in the present case, so far as the same was verified by the magistrate’s answer after the same had been corrected by the admissions made upon the traverse thereof.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lewis, J., disqualified.

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

Lumpkin, P. J.

1. One who executed and delivered a promissory note in renewal of a balance due upon a like note previously given for the purchase of personalty, and who at the time of giving the second note knew that this personalty was when purchased defective or worthless, was not, in defense to an action on that note, entitled to set up that the consideration thereof had failed because of the defectiveness or worthlessness of the property. See Atlanta etc. Co. v. Hutchinson, 109 Ga. 550, and cases cited on page 552.

2. The foregoing disposes of the only question presented by the petition for certiorari in the present case, so far as the same was verified by the magistrate’s answer after the same had been corrected by the admissions made upon the traverse thereof.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lewis, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 S.E. 880, 112 Ga. 662, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogan-v-brown-co-ga-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack