Miller v. Slade & Farish

Supreme Court of Georgia

Miller v. Slade & Farish

43 S.E. 69, 116 Ga. 772, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 254

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 12, 1902·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Fish, J.

It was not erroneous to sustain a demurrer to a plea alleging that the promissory note sued on had been altered without defendant’s consent, when, even if the alleged alteration was in the note and material, there was no allegation that it was made with intent to defraud. Civil Code, §3702; Burch v. Pope, 114 Ga. 334.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent.

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

Fish, J.

It was not erroneous to sustain a demurrer to a plea alleging that the promissory note sued on had been altered without defendant’s consent, when, even if the alleged alteration was in the note and material, there was no allegation that it was made with intent to defraud. Civil Code, §3702; Burch v. Pope, 114 Ga. 334.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent.

Miller v. Slade & Farish, 43 S.E. 69, 116 Ga. 772, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 254 (Ga. 1902).

Pincite

43 S.E. 69 (Miller v. Slade & Farish) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related