Rogers v. Rogers

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rogers v. Rogers

184 S.E. 404, 52 Ga. App. 548, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 179

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 6, 1936

Docket25196

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 S.E. 404 (Rogers v. Rogers) 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

Rogers v. Rogers, 184 S.E. 404, 52 Ga. App. 548, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 179 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Sutton, J.

In a suit on a note, where the defendant denies the execution of the note by a plea of non est factum, the burden of proving the execution of the note is on the plaintiff. Lowe Cracker Co. v. Ginn, 94 Ga. 408 (20 S. E. 106); Stanton v. Burge, 34 Ga. 435; Thompson v. Kelsey, 8 Ga. App. 23 (68 S. E. 518). The plaintiff testified that, while he was not an expert, in his opinion the purported signature of the defendant to the note and her admitted signature to the verified plea of non est factum, were the same, although he did not know that the defendant signed the note and could not swear that she did. The jury had this plea before them, and could make a physical comparison of the signature [549]*549thereon with the. signature on the note sued on. Therefore it was for the jury to decide whether or not the signature on the note was that of the defendant. Code of 1933, §§ 38-708, 38-709; Wilson v. Barnard, 10 Ga. App. 98 (72 S. E. 943); Vizard v. Moody, 119 Ga. 918 (8) 924 (47 S. E. 348); Modern Order of Prœtorians v. Blackburn, 42 Ga. App. 690 (157 S. E. 331); Bessman v. Girardey, 66 Ga. 18, 28. While there was a conflict in the evidence, this court can not hold that the judge abused his discretion in refusing a new trial. Code of 1933, § 70-206. The verdict in the plaintiff’s favor was authorized by the evidence.

Decided February 6, 1936. W. T. Burkhalter, for plaintiff in error. P. M. Anderson, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J.', concur.

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

Sutton, J.

In a suit on a note, where the defendant denies the execution of the note by a plea of non est factum, the burden of proving the execution of the note is on the plaintiff. Lowe Cracker Co. v. Ginn, 94 Ga. 408 (20 S. E. 106); Stanton v. Burge, 34 Ga. 435; Thompson v. Kelsey, 8 Ga. App. 23 (68 S. E. 518). The plaintiff testified that, while he was not an expert, in his opinion the purported signature of the defendant to the note and her admitted signature to the verified plea of non est factum, were the same, although he did not know that the defendant signed the note and could not swear that she did. The jury had this plea before them, and could make a physical comparison of the signature [549]*549thereon with the. signature on the note sued on. Therefore it was for the jury to decide whether or not the signature on the note was that of the defendant. Code of 1933, §§ 38-708, 38-709; Wilson v. Barnard, 10 Ga. App. 98 (72 S. E. 943); Vizard v. Moody, 119 Ga. 918 (8) 924 (47 S. E. 348); Modern Order of Prœtorians v. Blackburn, 42 Ga. App. 690 (157 S. E. 331); Bessman v. Girardey, 66 Ga. 18, 28. While there was a conflict in the evidence, this court can not hold that the judge abused his discretion in refusing a new trial. Code of 1933, § 70-206. The verdict in the plaintiff’s favor was authorized by the evidence.

Decided February 6, 1936. W. T. Burkhalter, for plaintiff in error. P. M. Anderson, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J.', concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 S.E. 404, 52 Ga. App. 548, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-rogers-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack