Mangum v. Manos

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mangum v. Manos

78 S.E. 775, 13 Ga. App. 62, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 33

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 8, 1913

Docket4848

StatusPublished

This text of 78 S.E. 775 (Mangum v. Manos) 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

Mangum v. Manos, 78 S.E. 775, 13 Ga. App. 62, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 33 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

This was a suit against husband and wife as joint makers of a contract of lease. The wife pleaded that she signed the contract as surety for her husband. There was sufficient evidence to authorize a finding that she executed the contract as a principal. The trial judge, distinctly instructed the jury that under the law of this State, a married woman can not become security or bind her estate by any contract' of suretyship; and that if they should believe that the wife was a surety and not a principal upon the contract sued on, she would not be liable, and they should so find. This instruction sufficiently covered the issue involved; and if a more specific charge was desired, it should have been requested in- writing. The evidence authorized the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

This was a suit against husband and wife as joint makers of a contract of lease. The wife pleaded that she signed the contract as surety for her husband. There was sufficient evidence to authorize a finding that she executed the contract as a principal. The trial judge, distinctly instructed the jury that under the law of this State, a married woman can not become security or bind her estate by any contract' of suretyship; and that if they should believe that the wife was a surety and not a principal upon the contract sued on, she would not be liable, and they should so find. This instruction sufficiently covered the issue involved; and if a more specific charge was desired, it should have been requested in- writing. The evidence authorized the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 775, 13 Ga. App. 62, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangum-v-manos-gactapp-1913.