Morrow v. Fitzpatrick

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morrow v. Fitzpatrick

131 S.E. 189, 34 Ga. App. 801, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 47

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 14, 1926

Docket16603

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 131 S.E. 189 (Morrow v. Fitzpatrick) 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

Morrow v. Fitzpatrick, 131 S.E. 189, 34 Ga. App. 801, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

Where a purchaser of property executes promissory notes in separate amounts, maturing upon separate dates, but providing that upon a described default in payment all of said notes shall be due and collectible, such separate notes, even though growing out of an entire and single sale contract, are by agreement of the makers made to constitute separate and distinct causes of action, and the plaintiff, in suing upon any of the notes, is not compelled to sue upon all of them in one suit. Any number of such notes may be joined in one suit, provided the sum thereof does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of the court. Starnes v. Mutual Loan & Banking Co., 102 Ga. 597, 598 (5) (29 S. E. 452).

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.

Where a purchaser of property executes promissory notes in separate amounts, maturing upon separate dates, but providing that upon a described default in payment all of said notes shall be due and collectible, such separate notes, even though growing out of an entire and single sale contract, are by agreement of the makers made to constitute separate and distinct causes of action, and the plaintiff, in suing upon any of the notes, is not compelled to sue upon all of them in one suit. Any number of such notes may be joined in one suit, provided the sum thereof does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of the court. Starnes v. Mutual Loan & Banking Co., 102 Ga. 597, 598 (5) (29 S. E. 452).

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E. 189, 34 Ga. App. 801, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrow-v-fitzpatrick-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack