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

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 13, 1969

Docket44181

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 167 S.E.2d 213 (Simpson v. Wages) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E.2d 213, 119 Ga. App. 324, 6 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 518, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-wages-gactapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack