Horton v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Horton v. Smith

77 S.E. 9, 12 Ga. App. 232, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 510

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 4, 1913

Docket4507

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 9 (Horton 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

Horton v. Smith, 77 S.E. 9, 12 Ga. App. 232, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. Suit was brought against a partnership alleged to have been composed of Horton and Burns, upon a promissory note, a copy of which was attached to the petition, from which it appeared that the note had been signed “Burns and Horton.” An amendment was offered, striking the word “and” in the signature and substituting therefor the words “his mark,” so _ that the signature as amended should, read his “Burns x Horton.” mark Held: This amendment did not introduce either a new cause of action or a new party defendant; nor was the petition as amended subject to demurrer. Since it appeared from the [233]*233petition that the intention was to sue the partnership, and that the signature as amended was made by one of the partners, and was intended as the signature'of the partnership, the material question was whether one of the partners signed the note, and, in so doing, intended to bind the partnership. The petition sufficiently alleged that he did. Words & Phrases, vol. 7, p. 6509; Horton v. Murden, 117 Ga. 72 (43 S. E. 786).

Decided February 4, 1913.

Complaint; from city court of Floyd county—Judge Eeece. September 23, 1912.

Harris, Harris & Harris, for plaintiffs in error. M. B. Eubanks, contra.

2. “Where a note is given in the name of a partnership by one member of the firm, after dissolution, and such note is accepted by a creditor of the firm in renewal or exchange oí a partnership note due to such creditor (which note is surrendered), such new note binds the firm, notwithstanding the dissolution, if the creditor when he received the new note had no notice that it was signed after the firm’s dissolution.” Bank of Covington v. Cammon, 133 Ga. 779 (2), (67 S. E. 83). See, also, Ennis v. Williams, 30 Ga. 691; Bush v. McCarty Co., 127 Ga. 308 (56 S. E. 430, 9 Ann. Cas. 240).

3. The evidence demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

1. Suit was brought against a partnership alleged to have been composed of Horton and Burns, upon a promissory note, a copy of which was attached to the petition, from which it appeared that the note had been signed “Burns and Horton.” An amendment was offered, striking the word “and” in the signature and substituting therefor the words “his mark,” so _ that the signature as amended should, read his “Burns x Horton.” mark Held: This amendment did not introduce either a new cause of action or a new party defendant; nor was the petition as amended subject to demurrer. Since it appeared from the [233]*233petition that the intention was to sue the partnership, and that the signature as amended was made by one of the partners, and was intended as the signature'of the partnership, the material question was whether one of the partners signed the note, and, in so doing, intended to bind the partnership. The petition sufficiently alleged that he did. Words & Phrases, vol. 7, p. 6509; Horton v. Murden, 117 Ga. 72 (43 S. E. 786).

Decided February 4, 1913.

Complaint; from city court of Floyd county—Judge Eeece. September 23, 1912.

Harris, Harris & Harris, for plaintiffs in error. M. B. Eubanks, contra.

2. “Where a note is given in the name of a partnership by one member of the firm, after dissolution, and such note is accepted by a creditor of the firm in renewal or exchange oí a partnership note due to such creditor (which note is surrendered), such new note binds the firm, notwithstanding the dissolution, if the creditor when he received the new note had no notice that it was signed after the firm’s dissolution.” Bank of Covington v. Cammon, 133 Ga. 779 (2), (67 S. E. 83). See, also, Ennis v. Williams, 30 Ga. 691; Bush v. McCarty Co., 127 Ga. 308 (56 S. E. 430, 9 Ann. Cas. 240).

3. The evidence demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 9, 12 Ga. App. 232, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-smith-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

3. The evidence demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack