Moore v. Flowers Lumber Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Moore v. Flowers Lumber Co.

133 S.E. 650, 35 Ga. App. 336, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 709

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 20, 1926

Docket16982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 133 S.E. 650 (Moore v. Flowers Lumber 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

Moore v. Flowers Lumber Co., 133 S.E. 650, 35 Ga. App. 336, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 709 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinions

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “Where one deliberately signs a promissory note for a stated sum, without informing nimself as to the correctness of the amount named, but relies upon the promise of the other party to the contract that it would be revised so as to correct errors, the maker will not be heard to contradict the written instrument by setting up such parol understanding in opposition thereto. The terms of the writing can not be defeated upon the ground of mistake made at the time the instrument was executed, when it thus appears that it was not even the intention of the signer that the settlement was to be accurate and final,’ but that under an oral agreement the terms of the instrument were to be varied and revised according to the true state of facts that might thereafter appear. Wilson v. Bush, 22 Ga. App. 83 (95 S. E. 317); Dyar v. Walton, 79 Ga. 466 (7 S. E. 220); Brack v. Brantley Co., 134 Ga. 495 (67 S. E. 1128). And see Atlanta Journal v. Power, 27 Ga. App. 280 (108 S. E. 121). Applying this rule to the allegations of the defendant’s plea in this case, the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer thereto.” Slacer v. Ehrlich, 22 Ga. App. 285 (95 S. E. 1016).

[337]*337Decided April 20, 1926. Adhered to on rehearing June 14, 1926. G. J. Lester, for plaintiff in error. Leon 0. Greer, contra.

2. There was no error in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial, which was based upon general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “Where one deliberately signs a promissory note for a stated sum, without informing nimself as to the correctness of the amount named, but relies upon the promise of the other party to the contract that it would be revised so as to correct errors, the maker will not be heard to contradict the written instrument by setting up such parol understanding in opposition thereto. The terms of the writing can not be defeated upon the ground of mistake made at the time the instrument was executed, when it thus appears that it was not even the intention of the signer that the settlement was to be accurate and final,’ but that under an oral agreement the terms of the instrument were to be varied and revised according to the true state of facts that might thereafter appear. Wilson v. Bush, 22 Ga. App. 83 (95 S. E. 317); Dyar v. Walton, 79 Ga. 466 (7 S. E. 220); Brack v. Brantley Co., 134 Ga. 495 (67 S. E. 1128). And see Atlanta Journal v. Power, 27 Ga. App. 280 (108 S. E. 121). Applying this rule to the allegations of the defendant’s plea in this case, the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer thereto.” Slacer v. Ehrlich, 22 Ga. App. 285 (95 S. E. 1016).

[337]*337Decided April 20, 1926. Adhered to on rehearing June 14, 1926. G. J. Lester, for plaintiff in error. Leon 0. Greer, contra.

2. There was no error in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial, which was based upon general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 650, 35 Ga. App. 336, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-flowers-lumber-co-gactapp-1926.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack