Lake v. Hamilton Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lake v. Hamilton Bank

237 S.E.2d 518, 143 Ga. App. 73, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2192

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 11, 1977

Docket53954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 237 S.E.2d 518 (Lake v. Hamilton Bank) 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

Lake v. Hamilton Bank, 237 S.E.2d 518, 143 Ga. App. 73, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2192 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

In this suit to recover on a promissory note a jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Held:

Argued May 3, 1977 Decided July 11, 1977 Rehearing denied July 28, 1977 Grady V. Lake, pro se. Katz, Palter & Land, John E. Robinson, for appellee.

1. Defendant raised issues that he did not execute the note and also affirmatively plead the defense of failure of consideration. There was evidence adduced at the trial by plaintiff from which the jury could find that defendant signed the note in question; that there was consideration; and that the note had not been repaid. As the evidence authorized a verdict for plaintiff, it was not error to deny defendant’s motion for directed verdict.

2. Lastly, defendant enumerates as error the trial court’s failure to charge the jury on the necessary elements of a contract and "how the facts could relate to the law as to their findings.” There was no request to charge and no objection made to the charge as given. Consequently, defendant has no standing to complain on appeal. Code § 70-207 (a).

3. Plaintiffs motion for damages for pursuing a frivolous appeal is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur.

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