Lewis v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lewis v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.

144 S.E. 921, 38 Ga. App. 582, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 344

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1928

Docket18439

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 921 (Lewis v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.) 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

Lewis v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 144 S.E. 921, 38 Ga. App. 582, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 344 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

Where the only issue presented under the pleadings is whether the obligation sued on was an obligation and undertaking by the defendant as a married woman in payment of or in satisfaction of a debt of her husband for fertilizers furnished by the plaintiff and [583]*583delivered to tlie husband, the prior execution and giving by a third person of a promissory note to the plaintiff for the fertilizer, the execution and giving of which was exacted by the plaintiff as a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s furnishing the fertilizer, and the fact that the person executing and giving this note will have to pay it if the obligation sued on is not paid by the defendant, arc immaterial and irrelevant, and calculated to prejudice the defendant’s rights, and the court erred in admitting such facts in evidence over objection interposed by the defendant.

Decided September 15, 1928. Wade E. Watson, for plaintiff in error. E. J. Lawrence, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

Where the only issue presented under the pleadings is whether the obligation sued on was an obligation and undertaking by the defendant as a married woman in payment of or in satisfaction of a debt of her husband for fertilizers furnished by the plaintiff and [583]*583delivered to tlie husband, the prior execution and giving by a third person of a promissory note to the plaintiff for the fertilizer, the execution and giving of which was exacted by the plaintiff as a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s furnishing the fertilizer, and the fact that the person executing and giving this note will have to pay it if the obligation sued on is not paid by the defendant, arc immaterial and irrelevant, and calculated to prejudice the defendant’s rights, and the court erred in admitting such facts in evidence over objection interposed by the defendant.

Decided September 15, 1928. Wade E. Watson, for plaintiff in error. E. J. Lawrence, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 921, 38 Ga. App. 582, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-virginia-carolina-chemical-co-gactapp-1928.