Paris v. Farmers & Merchants Bank

Supreme Court of Georgia

Paris v. Farmers & Merchants Bank

85 S.E. 126, 143 Ga. 324, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 420

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 126 (Paris v. Farmers & Merchants Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paris v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 85 S.E. 126, 143 Ga. 324, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 420 (Ga. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. A contract, “For value received I hereby guarantee payment of the within note and any renewal of the same in force and effect as against the maker previously liable thereon, and hereby waive protest, demand, and all notice of non-payment thereof,” signed by third persons and entered on the back of a promissory note executed by an individual and payable to a named bank, was prima facie a contract of guaranty, in contradistinction to one of surety; and parol evidence was admissible to show that the persons signing as guarantors did so without independent consideration to them, and that the contract was one of suretyship. Baggs v. Funderburke, 11 Ga. App. 793 (74 S. E. 937); Maril v. Boswell, 12 Ga. App. 41, 45 (76 S. E. 773); Buck v. Bank, 104 Ga. 660 (30 S. E. 872) ; Watlers v. Hertz, 135 Ga. 814 (70 S. E. 343) ; Park’s Code, §§ 3538, 3541, 3556.

2. The issues made by the pleadings were fairly submitted under appropriate instructions. Some of the grounds of the motion for new trial are not approved by the court. The evidence was conflicting, but authorized the verdict for the plaintiff; and none of the assignments of error are sufficient to require the grant of a new trial.

Judgment affirmed on the maim bill of exceptions. Gross-bill dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish,,G. J., absent.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. A contract, “For value received I hereby guarantee payment of the within note and any renewal of the same in force and effect as against the maker previously liable thereon, and hereby waive protest, demand, and all notice of non-payment thereof,” signed by third persons and entered on the back of a promissory note executed by an individual and payable to a named bank, was prima facie a contract of guaranty, in contradistinction to one of surety; and parol evidence was admissible to show that the persons signing as guarantors did so without independent consideration to them, and that the contract was one of suretyship. Baggs v. Funderburke, 11 Ga. App. 793 (74 S. E. 937); Maril v. Boswell, 12 Ga. App. 41, 45 (76 S. E. 773); Buck v. Bank, 104 Ga. 660 (30 S. E. 872) ; Watlers v. Hertz, 135 Ga. 814 (70 S. E. 343) ; Park’s Code, §§ 3538, 3541, 3556.

2. The issues made by the pleadings were fairly submitted under appropriate instructions. Some of the grounds of the motion for new trial are not approved by the court. The evidence was conflicting, but authorized the verdict for the plaintiff; and none of the assignments of error are sufficient to require the grant of a new trial.

Judgment affirmed on the maim bill of exceptions. Gross-bill dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish,,G. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 126, 143 Ga. 324, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paris-v-farmers-merchants-bank-ga-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack