Simpson v. Wages

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Simpson v. Wages

167 S.E.2d 213, 119 Ga. App. 324, 6 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 518, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1086

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 13, 1969·No. 44181·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

Code Ann. § 109A-3 — 118 (e) (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 245) provides: “Unless the instrument otherwise specifies two or more persons who sign as maker, acceptor or drawer or indorser and as a part of the same transaction are jointly and severally liable even though the instrument contains such words as T promise to pay.’ ” Where as in the case sub judice there is a negotiable instrument containing the words “we promise to pay” and signed by three parties, absent any specific provision to the contrary, the three co-makers are jointly and severally liable under the provisions of this Code section. Ghitter v. Edge, 118 Ga. App. 750 (2) (165 SE2d 598). See Official Comment, 2 U. L. A. — U. C. C., § 3-118 (e), p. 54; 4 Encyc. of Ga. Law, Commercial Code § 146, pp. 251, 252. Hence, an action against two of the three co-makers on the note was sustainable even though the other co-maker was dismissed as a party defendant. The trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the two defendants and overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

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

Quillian, Judge.

Code Ann. § 109A-3 — 118 (e) (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 245) provides: “Unless the instrument otherwise specifies two or more persons who sign as maker, acceptor or drawer or indorser and as a part of the same transaction are jointly and severally liable even though the instrument contains such words as T promise to pay.’ ” Where as in the case sub judice there is a negotiable instrument containing the words “we promise to pay” and signed by three parties, absent any specific provision to the contrary, the three co-makers are jointly and severally liable under the provisions of this Code section. Ghitter v. Edge, 118 Ga. App. 750 (2) (165 SE2d 598). See Official Comment, 2 U. L. A. — U. C. C., § 3-118 (e), p. 54; 4 Encyc. of Ga. Law, Commercial Code § 146, pp. 251, 252. Hence, an action against two of the three co-makers on the note was sustainable even though the other co-maker was dismissed as a party defendant. The trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the two defendants and overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

Simpson v. Wages, 167 S.E.2d 213, 119 Ga. App. 324, 6 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 518, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1086 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

167 S.E.2d 213 (Simpson v. Wages) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related