Summers v. Lee

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Summers v. Lee

73 S.E. 602, 10 Ga. App. 441, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 551

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 30, 1912

Docket3518

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 602 (Summers v. Lee) 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

Summers v. Lee, 73 S.E. 602, 10 Ga. App. 441, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. The court erred in disallowing the defendant’s plea of set-off. “If the plaintiff sues- for the benefit of another person, a set-off against the beneficiary shall be allowed.” Civil Code (1910), § 4343.

2. There being sufficient evidence to authorize the inference that the making of the note and the deed by the wife, to secure a loan to her, was merely a colorable scheme by which her separate estate was to be subjected to the debts of her husband, it was error to direct the verdict for the plaintiff. Even if the evidence could be said to preponderate in favor of the plaintiff, the verdict directed was not demanded; for there ' was testimony upon which the jury might have found that the plaintiff advanced the money"knowing that it was to be used to pay the husband’s debts, including his debt to the bank, and that the entire transaction was a collusive scheme, by which the statute against suretyship on the part of married women might be evaded. Central Bank v. Almand, 135 Ga. 231 (69 S. E. 111); McLeod v. Southern Fertilizer Co., 7 Ga. App. 322 (66 S. E. 802).

Judgment reversed. Pottle, J., not presiding.

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

Russell, J.

1. The court erred in disallowing the defendant’s plea of set-off. “If the plaintiff sues- for the benefit of another person, a set-off against the beneficiary shall be allowed.” Civil Code (1910), § 4343.

2. There being sufficient evidence to authorize the inference that the making of the note and the deed by the wife, to secure a loan to her, was merely a colorable scheme by which her separate estate was to be subjected to the debts of her husband, it was error to direct the verdict for the plaintiff. Even if the evidence could be said to preponderate in favor of the plaintiff, the verdict directed was not demanded; for there ' was testimony upon which the jury might have found that the plaintiff advanced the money"knowing that it was to be used to pay the husband’s debts, including his debt to the bank, and that the entire transaction was a collusive scheme, by which the statute against suretyship on the part of married women might be evaded. Central Bank v. Almand, 135 Ga. 231 (69 S. E. 111); McLeod v. Southern Fertilizer Co., 7 Ga. App. 322 (66 S. E. 802).

Judgment reversed. Pottle, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 602, 10 Ga. App. 441, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summers-v-lee-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack