Rutherford v. Executive Committee of the Baptist Convention

Supreme Court of Georgia

Rutherford v. Executive Committee of the Baptist Convention

9 Ga. 54

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 15, 1850

DocketNo. 10

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 9 Ga. 54 (Rutherford v. Executive Committee of the Baptist Convention) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rutherford v. Executive Committee of the Baptist Convention, 9 Ga. 54 (Ga. 1850).

Pincite

Opinion

[55]*55 By the Court.

Warner, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The defendant in the Court below demurred to the instrument declared on, when offered in evidence, upon the ground that it was void as a contract in law, for want of a legal consideration to support it. The Court overruled the demurrer, and the defendant excepted, and now assigns the same for error here.

The instrument set forth in the record is executed under the hand and seal of the defendant, and necessarily imports a consideration. In the case of a specialty, no consideration is necessary to give it validity, even in a Court of Equity. Chitty on Contracts, page 2. Chitty on Bills, 8. Fallowes vs. Taylor, 7 Term Rep. 473. But it is said this rule is merely technical. Admit it to be so, yet, we have no disposition to alter it, even had we the power to aid this defendant in making, what appears to us on the face of this record, to be an unjust defence against the payment of the plaintiff’s demand.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.

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

[55]*55 By the Court.

Warner, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The defendant in the Court below demurred to the instrument declared on, when offered in evidence, upon the ground that it was void as a contract in law, for want of a legal consideration to support it. The Court overruled the demurrer, and the defendant excepted, and now assigns the same for error here.

The instrument set forth in the record is executed under the hand and seal of the defendant, and necessarily imports a consideration. In the case of a specialty, no consideration is necessary to give it validity, even in a Court of Equity. Chitty on Contracts, page 2. Chitty on Bills, 8. Fallowes vs. Taylor, 7 Term Rep. 473. But it is said this rule is merely technical. Admit it to be so, yet, we have no disposition to alter it, even had we the power to aid this defendant in making, what appears to us on the face of this record, to be an unjust defence against the payment of the plaintiff’s demand.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Ga. 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutherford-v-executive-committee-of-the-baptist-convention-ga-1850.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack