McConnell v. Hulsey

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McConnell v. Hulsey

87 S.E. 156, 17 Ga. App. 387, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 443

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 2, 1915

Docket6490

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 156 (McConnell v. Hulsey) 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

McConnell v. Hulsey, 87 S.E. 156, 17 Ga. App. 387, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 443 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinions

Russell, C. J.

1. Parol evidence is inadmissible to alter or vary the terms of an unambiguous written instrument, unless it is manifest from the recitals of the instrument itself that, due to a clerical mistake, the instrument does not express the real intention of the parties. Gaulding v. Baker, 9 Ga. App. 578 (71 S. E. 1018). The action of a constable, suing for the use of W., upon a forthcoming bond, can not be sustained by introducing in evidence a bond taken by the constable on the levy of an attachment sued out by G., and payable to the officer who levied that attachment.

(a) In the instant case nothing appears in the face of the bond which indicates that it was given in any proceeding instituted in behalf of W.

2. The court erred in not sustaining the objections to the documentary evidence offered on the trial, and the appellate division of the municipal court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, J., dissents.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. Parol evidence is inadmissible to alter or vary the terms of an unambiguous written instrument, unless it is manifest from the recitals of the instrument itself that, due to a clerical mistake, the instrument does not express the real intention of the parties. Gaulding v. Baker, 9 Ga. App. 578 (71 S. E. 1018). The action of a constable, suing for the use of W., upon a forthcoming bond, can not be sustained by introducing in evidence a bond taken by the constable on the levy of an attachment sued out by G., and payable to the officer who levied that attachment.

(a) In the instant case nothing appears in the face of the bond which indicates that it was given in any proceeding instituted in behalf of W.

2. The court erred in not sustaining the objections to the documentary evidence offered on the trial, and the appellate division of the municipal court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 156, 17 Ga. App. 387, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcconnell-v-hulsey-gactapp-1915.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack