Sikes v. Payton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sikes v. Payton

99 S.E. 310, 23 Ga. App. 721, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 312

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 13, 1919

Docket10081

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 310 (Sikes v. Payton) 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

Sikes v. Payton, 99 S.E. 310, 23 Ga. App. 721, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 312 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Where the actual consideration of an unconditional promise to pay is not integrated in the instrument, its only recital as to consideration being the general phrase “for value received,” the general rule, that the real consideration is ordinarily a proper subject-matter of inquiry where the controversy is between the original parties, does not authorize the promisor, unless fraud, accident, or mistake exist, to plead that his unconditional obligation to pay was conditional upon the happening of contingencies; and such a plea, being fatally defective, was properly stricken on motion. Hirsch v. Oliver, 91 Ga. 554, 560 (18 S. E. 354); Dinkler v. Baer, 92 Ga. 432 (3) (17 S. E. 953) ; Byrd [722]*722v. Marietta Fertilizer Co., 127 Ga. 30 (56 S. E. 86) ; Pryor v. Ludden, 134 Ga. 288 (67 S. E. 654, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 267); Daniels v. Smith, 144 Ga. 561 (87 S. E. 774) ; Rheney v. Anderson, 22 Ga. App. 417 (96 S. E. 217); Planters Bank v. Brown, 22 Ga. App. 495 (96 S. E. 328).

Decided May 13, 1919.

Appeal; from Tift superior court—Judge Eve. August 8, 1918.

James H. Price, for plaintiff in ertor. Fulwood & Hargett, contra.

2. The ruling stated in the case of Gibbs v. Fourth National Bank, 17 Ga. App. 388 (87 S. E. 155), is abstractly correct, but is-not altogether applicable to the facts there 'stated; and in so far as- that case- conflicts with the ruling here made, it is overruled. -

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J.,concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. Where the actual consideration of an unconditional promise to pay is not integrated in the instrument, its only recital as to consideration being the general phrase “for value received,” the general rule, that the real consideration is ordinarily a proper subject-matter of inquiry where the controversy is between the original parties, does not authorize the promisor, unless fraud, accident, or mistake exist, to plead that his unconditional obligation to pay was conditional upon the happening of contingencies; and such a plea, being fatally defective, was properly stricken on motion. Hirsch v. Oliver, 91 Ga. 554, 560 (18 S. E. 354); Dinkler v. Baer, 92 Ga. 432 (3) (17 S. E. 953) ; Byrd [722]*722v. Marietta Fertilizer Co., 127 Ga. 30 (56 S. E. 86) ; Pryor v. Ludden, 134 Ga. 288 (67 S. E. 654, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 267); Daniels v. Smith, 144 Ga. 561 (87 S. E. 774) ; Rheney v. Anderson, 22 Ga. App. 417 (96 S. E. 217); Planters Bank v. Brown, 22 Ga. App. 495 (96 S. E. 328).

Decided May 13, 1919.

Appeal; from Tift superior court—Judge Eve. August 8, 1918.

James H. Price, for plaintiff in ertor. Fulwood & Hargett, contra.

2. The ruling stated in the case of Gibbs v. Fourth National Bank, 17 Ga. App. 388 (87 S. E. 155), is abstractly correct, but is-not altogether applicable to the facts there 'stated; and in so far as- that case- conflicts with the ruling here made, it is overruled. -

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J.,concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 310, 23 Ga. App. 721, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sikes-v-payton-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack