Tootle v. Baker

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tootle v. Baker

115 S.E. 919, 29 Ga. App. 492, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 85

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 9, 1923

Docket13592

StatusPublished

This text of 115 S.E. 919 (Tootle v. Baker) 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

Tootle v. Baker, 115 S.E. 919, 29 Ga. App. 492, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, <T.

This was an action by the payee against the maker of a promissory note and an alleged accommodation indorser, against which the indorser defended upon the ground that his indorsement was given not as surety for the principal defendant, but at the plaintiff’s request and solely as surety for the plaintiff, in order that the plaintiff might negotiate the note to another, and that the plaintiff did negotiate the [493]*493note, but thereafter reacquired it. See Rheney v. Anderson, 22 Ga. App. 418 (96 S. E. 217). The evidence as a whole was not of such a character as to demand a verdict in favor of the plea, but merely presented an issue thereon for determination by the jury, whose verdict was in favor of the plaintiff and against the plea. No error of law is complained of, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the indorser’s motion for new trial, containing the general grounds only.

Decided February 9, 1923. E. C. Collins, for plaintiff in error. II. C. Beasley, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, <T.

This was an action by the payee against the maker of a promissory note and an alleged accommodation indorser, against which the indorser defended upon the ground that his indorsement was given not as surety for the principal defendant, but at the plaintiff’s request and solely as surety for the plaintiff, in order that the plaintiff might negotiate the note to another, and that the plaintiff did negotiate the [493]*493note, but thereafter reacquired it. See Rheney v. Anderson, 22 Ga. App. 418 (96 S. E. 217). The evidence as a whole was not of such a character as to demand a verdict in favor of the plea, but merely presented an issue thereon for determination by the jury, whose verdict was in favor of the plaintiff and against the plea. No error of law is complained of, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the indorser’s motion for new trial, containing the general grounds only.

Decided February 9, 1923. E. C. Collins, for plaintiff in error. II. C. Beasley, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 S.E. 919, 29 Ga. App. 492, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tootle-v-baker-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack