Singleton v. Rary

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Singleton v. Rary

157 S.E.2d 645, 116 Ga. App. 476, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 857

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 6, 1967

Docket43098, 43099

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 157 S.E.2d 645 (Singleton v. Rary) 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

Singleton v. Rary, 157 S.E.2d 645, 116 Ga. App. 476, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 857 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Ebbrhardt, Judge.

1. It is error to sustain a general demurrer to a petition seeking recovery on a promissory note in which it is alleged that the defendant is indebted to plaintiff thereunder in a specific sum, besides interest and attorney’s fees, a photostatic copy of the note and of a notice of intent to sue thereon and hold the maker for the attorney’s fees as therein provided being attached as exhibits.

Defendant’s contention that the exhibits “cannot be read with clarity,” and hence that since the validity of the suit is dependent thereon a general demurrer was properly sustained, is without merit. The exhibits attached, as they appear in the record transmitted to this court, are clearly legible. If they were not legible it would be a matter reached by special rather than general demurrer.

2. There was no error in sustaining a special demurrer on the ground of irrelevancy and striking a copy of a letter addressed to the defendant, attached as Exhibit C, in which the notes were described and the defendant was requested to make payment.

3. The defendant’s answer simply denied all paragraphs of the *477 petition and plaintiff moved to strike or dismiss the answer since it amounted to no more than a plea of the general issue against an unconditional contract in writing. Other than the denial of the giving of the notice to bind the defendant for the payment of attorney’s fees the answer was a plea of the general issue, setting up no legal defense, and could not be amended to set up a defense to the unconditional part of the contract. Except as to the denial of the notice for attorney’s fees, the answer should have been stricken. Palmer Tire Co. v. L. & H. Acceptance Corp., 114 Ga. App. 314 (151 SE2d 178).

Argued October 2,1967 Decided October 6, 1967. Wall, Armstrong & Fuller, Hilton M. Fuller, Jr., for appellant. Larry W. Thomason, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.

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

Ebbrhardt, Judge.

1. It is error to sustain a general demurrer to a petition seeking recovery on a promissory note in which it is alleged that the defendant is indebted to plaintiff thereunder in a specific sum, besides interest and attorney’s fees, a photostatic copy of the note and of a notice of intent to sue thereon and hold the maker for the attorney’s fees as therein provided being attached as exhibits.

Defendant’s contention that the exhibits “cannot be read with clarity,” and hence that since the validity of the suit is dependent thereon a general demurrer was properly sustained, is without merit. The exhibits attached, as they appear in the record transmitted to this court, are clearly legible. If they were not legible it would be a matter reached by special rather than general demurrer.

2. There was no error in sustaining a special demurrer on the ground of irrelevancy and striking a copy of a letter addressed to the defendant, attached as Exhibit C, in which the notes were described and the defendant was requested to make payment.

3. The defendant’s answer simply denied all paragraphs of the *477 petition and plaintiff moved to strike or dismiss the answer since it amounted to no more than a plea of the general issue against an unconditional contract in writing. Other than the denial of the giving of the notice to bind the defendant for the payment of attorney’s fees the answer was a plea of the general issue, setting up no legal defense, and could not be amended to set up a defense to the unconditional part of the contract. Except as to the denial of the notice for attorney’s fees, the answer should have been stricken. Palmer Tire Co. v. L. & H. Acceptance Corp., 114 Ga. App. 314 (151 SE2d 178).

Argued October 2,1967 Decided October 6, 1967. Wall, Armstrong & Fuller, Hilton M. Fuller, Jr., for appellant. Larry W. Thomason, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.E.2d 645, 116 Ga. App. 476, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-rary-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack