Mansour v. Fulton National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mansour v. Fulton National Bank

92 S.E.2d 839, 93 Ga. App. 809, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 870

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 30, 1956

Docket36145

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 S.E.2d 839 (Mansour v. Fulton National 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

Mansour v. Fulton National Bank, 92 S.E.2d 839, 93 Ga. App. 809, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 870 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, C. J.

1. Where the note sued on contained the provision, “Any extension or renewal of this note in whole or in part, or of the indebtedness evidenced thereby may be made without the consent of or notice to any endorser, maker, guarantor, surety, or other party to this note, and without affecting or lessening the liability of any such person,” such provision contained in the face of the note was binding on the indorser. (Woodward v. Lowry, 74 Ga. 148, 159; Cantrell v. Byars, 66 Ga. App. 672 (2), 19 S. E. 2d 44; 8 Am. Jur. 456, § 808); and the amendment of the defendant setting up the defense that the defendantindorser was released by reason of an extension of the note was properly stricken on motion. Guaranty Mortgage Co. v. National Life Ins. Co., 55 Ga. App. 104, 118 (2) (189 S. E. 603); J. B. Watkins Co. v. Fricks, 210 Ga. 83 (78 S. E. 2d 2).

2. Assuming but not deciding that the evidence showed that the payee of the note sued on extended the time of payment or postponed the holder's right to enforce the instrument, so as ordinarily to discharge an indorser of the instrument (Code § 14-902 (6)), since the defendant had agreed that such an extension or postponement could be effected [810]*810without notice to him and without his consent, the evidence demanded a finding that the defendant had not been discharged by such extension or postponement.

Decided April 30, 1956. Jess H. Watson, for plaintiff in error. Smith, Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers & McClatchey, George B. Ilaley, Jr., contra.

3. There is no merit in the remaining assignment of error argued. An assignment of error not argued or expressly insisted upon will be treated as being abandoned.

The court did not err in striking the amendments to the plea and did not err in denying the amended motion for a new trial.

Judgments affirmed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, C. J.

1. Where the note sued on contained the provision, “Any extension or renewal of this note in whole or in part, or of the indebtedness evidenced thereby may be made without the consent of or notice to any endorser, maker, guarantor, surety, or other party to this note, and without affecting or lessening the liability of any such person,” such provision contained in the face of the note was binding on the indorser. (Woodward v. Lowry, 74 Ga. 148, 159; Cantrell v. Byars, 66 Ga. App. 672 (2), 19 S. E. 2d 44; 8 Am. Jur. 456, § 808); and the amendment of the defendant setting up the defense that the defendantindorser was released by reason of an extension of the note was properly stricken on motion. Guaranty Mortgage Co. v. National Life Ins. Co., 55 Ga. App. 104, 118 (2) (189 S. E. 603); J. B. Watkins Co. v. Fricks, 210 Ga. 83 (78 S. E. 2d 2).

2. Assuming but not deciding that the evidence showed that the payee of the note sued on extended the time of payment or postponed the holder's right to enforce the instrument, so as ordinarily to discharge an indorser of the instrument (Code § 14-902 (6)), since the defendant had agreed that such an extension or postponement could be effected [810]*810without notice to him and without his consent, the evidence demanded a finding that the defendant had not been discharged by such extension or postponement.

Decided April 30, 1956. Jess H. Watson, for plaintiff in error. Smith, Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers & McClatchey, George B. Ilaley, Jr., contra.

3. There is no merit in the remaining assignment of error argued. An assignment of error not argued or expressly insisted upon will be treated as being abandoned.

The court did not err in striking the amendments to the plea and did not err in denying the amended motion for a new trial.

Judgments affirmed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E.2d 839, 93 Ga. App. 809, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mansour-v-fulton-national-bank-gactapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack