Ross & Williams v. Southern Exchange Bank
This text of 144 S.E. 338 (Ross & Williams v. Southern Exchange Bank) 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.
Opinion
1. An agreement between the superintendent of banks and the maker of a promissory note, to the effect that the superintendent will not enforce the stipulation in the note with reference to the payment of attorney’s fees, is not binding where the agreement is entirely executory and is not supported by a valuable consideration and where no element of estoppel enters. Rylee v. Statham, 7 Ga. App. 489 (6) (67 S. E. 383; Southern Mfg. Co. v. Moss Mfg. Co., 13 Ga. App. 847 (3) (81 S. E. 263); Civil Code (1910), §§ 4241, 4326, 4329; 29 Am. & Eng. Ency. L. (2d ed.) 1097. This is not to decide whether the superintendent might effectively waive the collection of such fees under other circumstances.
2. The alleged agreement of the superintendent to waive the payment of such fees, as disclosed in the proffered amendments to the defendants’ answer, appearing to be a nudum pactum, the court did not err in disallowing the amendments.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
144 S.E. 338, 38 Ga. App. 532, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-williams-v-southern-exchange-bank-gactapp-1928.