Kent v. Hair
This text of 4 S.E.2d 703 (Kent v. Hair) 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.
Opinion
(After stating the foregoing facts.) Assuming that the Tennessee statute is open to the construction that the release of a cosurety or co-obligor does not release the other surety or obligor when the parties other than those not released stipulate that such other surety or obligor be not released, such a construction is contrary to the public policy of this State, as expressed by the Code, §§ 20-910, 103-201, and will not be enforced. Code, § 102-110; Shore Acres Properties Inc. v. Morgan, 44 Ga. App. 128 (160 S. E. 705); Sally v. Bank of Union, 150 Ga. 281 (3) (103 S. E. 400); Ulman, Magill & Jordan Woolen Co. v. Magill, 155 Ga. 555 (117 S. E. 657). It is unnecessary to pass upon the [655]*655other assignments of error. The court did not err in dismissing the action on the motion in the nature of a general demurrer.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 S.E.2d 703, 60 Ga. App. 652, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-hair-gactapp-1939.