Richbourg v. Tucker

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Richbourg v. Tucker

72 S.E. 65, 9 Ga. App. 665, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 285

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1911

Docket3036

StatusPublished

This text of 72 S.E. 65 (Richbourg v. Tucker) 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

Richbourg v. Tucker, 72 S.E. 65, 9 Ga. App. 665, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 285 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

• Richbourg and Mitchell owed a bank a past-due note. In order to pay that debt the present note, signed by Richbourg, Mitchell, and Tucker, was executed, Tucker signing as surety .only. When this note became due Tucker paid it and had it transferred to him. At the time this note was made, Richbourg told Tucker that the debt for which he had become liable on the first note’ was in fact Mitchell’s, but, other than Richbourg’s unsworn statement as to this fact, there was no proof. Mitchell being out of the State and not subject to service of process, Tucker sued Richbourg and recovered a judgment for the full amount of the note. Held, .that as to the second note, Tucker and Richbourg were not cosureties so as to make the latter liable for contribution only, and that this is true irrespective of what the relationship may have been between Richbourg and Mitchell as to the note which was paid by the execution of the note sued on. Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Sandersville — Judge Jordan. November 1, 1910.

Evans & Evans, for plaintiff in error. J. E. Hyman, Hardwick & Wright, contra.

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

Russell, J.

• Richbourg and Mitchell owed a bank a past-due note. In order to pay that debt the present note, signed by Richbourg, Mitchell, and Tucker, was executed, Tucker signing as surety .only. When this note became due Tucker paid it and had it transferred to him. At the time this note was made, Richbourg told Tucker that the debt for which he had become liable on the first note’ was in fact Mitchell’s, but, other than Richbourg’s unsworn statement as to this fact, there was no proof. Mitchell being out of the State and not subject to service of process, Tucker sued Richbourg and recovered a judgment for the full amount of the note. Held, .that as to the second note, Tucker and Richbourg were not cosureties so as to make the latter liable for contribution only, and that this is true irrespective of what the relationship may have been between Richbourg and Mitchell as to the note which was paid by the execution of the note sued on. Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from city court of Sandersville — Judge Jordan. November 1, 1910.

Evans & Evans, for plaintiff in error. J. E. Hyman, Hardwick & Wright, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 65, 9 Ga. App. 665, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richbourg-v-tucker-gactapp-1911.