Hunt v. Davenport
75 S.E. 644, 138 Ga. 622, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 637
Opinion
1. An amendment to an answer was properly disallowed which set up that the note, the foundation of the action, was void for the reason that it was given for a patent right, though- not expressing upon its face its consideration. Parr v. Erickson, 115 Ga. 873 (42 S. E. 240).
2. Under the evidence and the law applicable thereto, a verdict was demanded in behalf of the plaintiff, and the trial judge did not err in so directing. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hunt v. Davenport, 75 S.E. 644, 138 Ga. 622, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 637 (Ga. 1912).
75 S.E. 644 (Hunt v. Davenport) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Heard v. National Bank
84 S.E. 129 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
Franklin v. Bank of Colbert
84 S.E. 131 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)