Perlinski v. Maiden Lane Diamond Jewelry Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Perlinski v. Maiden Lane Diamond Jewelry Co.

99 S.E. 222, 23 Ga. App. 609, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 238

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 19, 1919

Docket9930

StatusPublished

This text of 99 S.E. 222 (Perlinski v. Maiden Lane Diamond Jewelry 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

Perlinski v. Maiden Lane Diamond Jewelry Co., 99 S.E. 222, 23 Ga. App. 609, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 238 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

Suit was brought in the municipal court of Atlanta against Perlinski upon a promissory note signed by Bernstein and indorsed by the defendant. The defendant filed a plea in which' he admitted a prima facie case, but alleged that there was no consideration to him for his indorsement, inasmuch as, by agreement with the plaintiff, he was to be paid a consideration of ten per cent, on all merchandise sold to the maker of the note, and that he indorsed it because of this offered consideration, but the plaintiff refused and failed to pay him the ten per cent. The court struck the plea, on motion on the ground that no legal defense was set up. The defendant carried the case to the superior court by certiorari, the certiorari was overruled, and he excepted. Held: The mere fact that the ten per cent, which was to be the consideration to the defendant was never paid did not invalidate the contract and relieve him from liability thereon. Had he filed a proper plea he would have been entitled to a set-off against the plaintiff’s claim. The trial court propeidy struck the plea.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

Suit was brought in the municipal court of Atlanta against Perlinski upon a promissory note signed by Bernstein and indorsed by the defendant. The defendant filed a plea in which' he admitted a prima facie case, but alleged that there was no consideration to him for his indorsement, inasmuch as, by agreement with the plaintiff, he was to be paid a consideration of ten per cent, on all merchandise sold to the maker of the note, and that he indorsed it because of this offered consideration, but the plaintiff refused and failed to pay him the ten per cent. The court struck the plea, on motion on the ground that no legal defense was set up. The defendant carried the case to the superior court by certiorari, the certiorari was overruled, and he excepted. Held: The mere fact that the ten per cent, which was to be the consideration to the defendant was never paid did not invalidate the contract and relieve him from liability thereon. Had he filed a proper plea he would have been entitled to a set-off against the plaintiff’s claim. The trial court propeidy struck the plea.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 222, 23 Ga. App. 609, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perlinski-v-maiden-lane-diamond-jewelry-co-gactapp-1919.