Rankin v. Griffeth

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rankin v. Griffeth

139 S.E. 360, 37 Ga. App. 203, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 580

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 9, 1927

Docket17821

StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.E. 360 (Rankin v. Griffeth) 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

Rankin v. Griffeth, 139 S.E. 360, 37 Ga. App. 203, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 580 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit upon a promissory note, where the defendants pleaded that they were sureties upon the note and that after its execution the note was materially altered by the plaintiff, who was the payee, testimony of the defendants to the effect that they signed the note in its original and unaltered condition and left it in the hands • of the maker before delivery to the plaintiff, was alone insufficient to authorize the inference that the .note was altered by the plaintiff.

2. There being positive, uncontradicted, and unimpeaclied testimony of the plaintiff to the effect that the note sued on was not altered by him, and it being undisputed that the defendants executed the note, there was no evidence to sustain the plea that the note was altered by the plaintiff. The court did not err in excluding the defendant’s testimony as above indicated and in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit upon a promissory note, where the defendants pleaded that they were sureties upon the note and that after its execution the note was materially altered by the plaintiff, who was the payee, testimony of the defendants to the effect that they signed the note in its original and unaltered condition and left it in the hands • of the maker before delivery to the plaintiff, was alone insufficient to authorize the inference that the .note was altered by the plaintiff.

2. There being positive, uncontradicted, and unimpeaclied testimony of the plaintiff to the effect that the note sued on was not altered by him, and it being undisputed that the defendants executed the note, there was no evidence to sustain the plea that the note was altered by the plaintiff. The court did not err in excluding the defendant’s testimony as above indicated and in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 360, 37 Ga. App. 203, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rankin-v-griffeth-gactapp-1927.