Pickett v. Brooke

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pickett v. Brooke

101 S.E. 814, 24 Ga. App. 651, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 429

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 6, 1920

Docket10704

StatusPublished

This text of 101 S.E. 814 (Pickett v. Brooke) 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

Pickett v. Brooke, 101 S.E. 814, 24 Ga. App. 651, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 429 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Any act of the creditor which injures the surety or increases his risk or exposes him to greater liability will discharge him. Under the evidence in this case the jury were authorized to find, and did find, that the creditor had, for a consideration, extended the time of payment of the note signed by the surety, and in addition thereto had calculated, and undertook to and did collect, usurious interest from the principal, and by reason of such payment did indulge the principal debtor and extend the payment of the note, all of which, according to the evidence, was without the knowledge or consent of the surety. See Civil Code (1910), § 3544; Camp v. Howell, 37 Ga. 312 (2).

2. The charge of the court, when read in its entirety, was full and fair and not subject to the criticisms urged against it. The verdict being supported by the evidence and having the approval of the trial judge, it was not error, for any reason assigned, to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., eoneur.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

G. B. Walker, E. W. Coleman, for plaintiff. J. P. Brooke, George F. Gober, B. B. Bussell, for defendant.

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

Luke, J.

1. Any act of the creditor which injures the surety or increases his risk or exposes him to greater liability will discharge him. Under the evidence in this case the jury were authorized to find, and did find, that the creditor had, for a consideration, extended the time of payment of the note signed by the surety, and in addition thereto had calculated, and undertook to and did collect, usurious interest from the principal, and by reason of such payment did indulge the principal debtor and extend the payment of the note, all of which, according to the evidence, was without the knowledge or consent of the surety. See Civil Code (1910), § 3544; Camp v. Howell, 37 Ga. 312 (2).

2. The charge of the court, when read in its entirety, was full and fair and not subject to the criticisms urged against it. The verdict being supported by the evidence and having the approval of the trial judge, it was not error, for any reason assigned, to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., eoneur.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

G. B. Walker, E. W. Coleman, for plaintiff. J. P. Brooke, George F. Gober, B. B. Bussell, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 814, 24 Ga. App. 651, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickett-v-brooke-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack