Seckinger v. Exchange Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Seckinger v. Exchange Bank

145 S.E. 94, 38 Ga. App. 667, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 382

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 11, 1928

Docket18930

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 S.E. 94 (Seckinger v. 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.

Bluebook

Seckinger v. Exchange Bank, 145 S.E. 94, 38 Ga. App. 667, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 382 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The provision in section 3546 of the Civil Code (1910), relative to discharge of a surety, guarantor, or indorser of a promissory note on failure of the creditor, after notice from the surety, guarantor, or indorser, to bring suit against the principal within a required time, that “no notice shall be considered a compliance with the requirements of this section which does not state the county of the principal’s residence,” requires actual notice. Constructive notice, if there be any, arising by virtue of an act of the legislature incorporating a city, that the city is in a particular county, will not suffice as a compliance with this section. Ware v. City Bank of Macon, 59 Ga. 840 (5); Smith v. Morris Fertilizer Co., 18 Ga. App. 217 (89 S. E. 174).

2. A notice which states that the principal’s residence is “Waycross, Ga.,” but which does not state the county of the principal’s residence, is not the notice required by the Civil Code (1910), § 3546.

3. This being a suit by the payee of the note against an indorser thereon, the plea of the defendant was properly stricken on demurrer, and the judgment aiterwards rendered for the plaintiff was not, by reason of the judgment on the demurrer, error.

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. The provision in section 3546 of the Civil Code (1910), relative to discharge of a surety, guarantor, or indorser of a promissory note on failure of the creditor, after notice from the surety, guarantor, or indorser, to bring suit against the principal within a required time, that “no notice shall be considered a compliance with the requirements of this section which does not state the county of the principal’s residence,” requires actual notice. Constructive notice, if there be any, arising by virtue of an act of the legislature incorporating a city, that the city is in a particular county, will not suffice as a compliance with this section. Ware v. City Bank of Macon, 59 Ga. 840 (5); Smith v. Morris Fertilizer Co., 18 Ga. App. 217 (89 S. E. 174).

2. A notice which states that the principal’s residence is “Waycross, Ga.,” but which does not state the county of the principal’s residence, is not the notice required by the Civil Code (1910), § 3546.

3. This being a suit by the payee of the note against an indorser thereon, the plea of the defendant was properly stricken on demurrer, and the judgment aiterwards rendered for the plaintiff was not, by reason of the judgment on the demurrer, error.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 94, 38 Ga. App. 667, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seckinger-v-exchange-bank-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack