Holton v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holton v. Smith

163 S.E. 516, 44 Ga. App. 832, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 546

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 18, 1932

Docket21665

StatusPublished

This text of 163 S.E. 516 (Holton v. Smith) 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

Holton v. Smith, 163 S.E. 516, 44 Ga. App. 832, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Where several persons who are directors of a banking corporation borrow money which is used for the benefit of the bank, and obligate themselves to repay it, all of the obligors are equally bound to bear the common burden, and where all of the obligors except one make a payment on the obligation, which payment represents their aggregate pro rata shares, their obligation to pay the remainder of the debt (which is the pro rata share of the obligor who did not pay) is, as respects this latter obligor, that of sureties only; and where the obligors who have thus paid their pro rata share of the debt execute as principals, together with the obligor who did not pay, a promissory note to the original obligee for the unpaid amount of the debt which represents the proportionate share of the obligor, who did not pay, they are, as respects the obligor who did not pay, sureties only. Civil Code (1910), § 3841; Duggan v. Monk, 5 Ga. App. 206 (62 S. E. 1017). Where the sureties paid the note in full, and it was transferred to them by the creditor, although no suit was filed upon it, they were subrogated to the rights of the creditor, and are entitled to recover against the principal, who was the obligor who did not pay, the amount of the note. Dabney v. Brigman Motors Co., 32 Ga. App. 652 (124 S. E. 370) ; Civil Code (1910), § 3567.

2, The petition set out a cause of action, and the court properly overruled the general demurrer thereto.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Where several persons who are directors of a banking corporation borrow money which is used for the benefit of the bank, and obligate themselves to repay it, all of the obligors are equally bound to bear the common burden, and where all of the obligors except one make a payment on the obligation, which payment represents their aggregate pro rata shares, their obligation to pay the remainder of the debt (which is the pro rata share of the obligor who did not pay) is, as respects this latter obligor, that of sureties only; and where the obligors who have thus paid their pro rata share of the debt execute as principals, together with the obligor who did not pay, a promissory note to the original obligee for the unpaid amount of the debt which represents the proportionate share of the obligor, who did not pay, they are, as respects the obligor who did not pay, sureties only. Civil Code (1910), § 3841; Duggan v. Monk, 5 Ga. App. 206 (62 S. E. 1017). Where the sureties paid the note in full, and it was transferred to them by the creditor, although no suit was filed upon it, they were subrogated to the rights of the creditor, and are entitled to recover against the principal, who was the obligor who did not pay, the amount of the note. Dabney v. Brigman Motors Co., 32 Ga. App. 652 (124 S. E. 370) ; Civil Code (1910), § 3567.

2, The petition set out a cause of action, and the court properly overruled the general demurrer thereto.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E. 516, 44 Ga. App. 832, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holton-v-smith-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack