Pattillo v. Alexander

Supreme Court of Georgia

Pattillo v. Alexander

30 S.E. 644, 105 Ga. 482, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 580

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 30 S.E. 644 (Pattillo v. Alexander) 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

Pattillo v. Alexander, 30 S.E. 644, 105 Ga. 482, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 580 (Ga. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Lewis, J.

1. When this case was here before (96 Ga. 60), it was ruled", that in the absence of evidence showing what was the law of Tennessee, the common law was presumed to be of force there; and that according to the rules of the common law, the contract sued on being one of indorsement, the indorser was entitled to notice of a failure-by the maker to pay the note at maturity. It appearing upon a sec- ’ ond trial of the present case that there was no statutory law of the-i State of Tennessee defining the character of the contract in question,, but that the same was governed by the rules of the common law, this-court will adhere to its former decision, notwithstanding the court- . of last resort of that State had construed similar contracts differently under the rules of the common laW.

2. It follows from the above, that it was error to admit evidence showing what construction based upon the common law the Supreme. Court of Tennessee had placed upon similar contracts.

Judgment reversed.

All concurring, except Cobb, J., absent.

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

Lewis, J.

1. When this case was here before (96 Ga. 60), it was ruled", that in the absence of evidence showing what was the law of Tennessee, the common law was presumed to be of force there; and that according to the rules of the common law, the contract sued on being one of indorsement, the indorser was entitled to notice of a failure-by the maker to pay the note at maturity. It appearing upon a sec- ’ ond trial of the present case that there was no statutory law of the-i State of Tennessee defining the character of the contract in question,, but that the same was governed by the rules of the common law, this-court will adhere to its former decision, notwithstanding the court- . of last resort of that State had construed similar contracts differently under the rules of the common laW.

2. It follows from the above, that it was error to admit evidence showing what construction based upon the common law the Supreme. Court of Tennessee had placed upon similar contracts.

Judgment reversed.

All concurring, except Cobb, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 S.E. 644, 105 Ga. 482, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pattillo-v-alexander-ga-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack