Tyson v. Henson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tyson v. Henson

285 S.E.2d 27, 159 Ga. App. 684, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2769

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 8, 1981

Docket62315

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 285 S.E.2d 27 (Tyson v. Henson) 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

Tyson v. Henson, 285 S.E.2d 27, 159 Ga. App. 684, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2769 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a summary judgment for the plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note. The defendant admitted executing the note and pled no affirmative defense pursuant to Code Ann. § 81A-108 (c). However, he denies liability, contending that the parties understood delivery of the note, which was executed as payment for the plaintiffs interest in an insolvent limited partnership, to be conditional on the firm’s attainment of “fiscal health.” The note itself calls unconditionally for repayment in specified installments due on specified dates. Held:

1. In the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, parol evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict the express terms of a promissory note. See, e.g., Cobb Bank & Trust Co. v. Henry, 246 Ga. 225 (271 SE2d 444) (1980); Motz v. National Bank of Ga., 156 Ga. App. 871 (275 SE2d 809) (1981).

2. Although the defendant contends that he can establish a defense of non est factum, he admits executing the note and does not allege that it has been altered in any way. Thus, he clearly has no such defense. See generally Code §§ 20-801; 109A-3 — 307.

3. Since the defendant has raised no legally cognizable defense, the trial court was correct in granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a summary judgment for the plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note. The defendant admitted executing the note and pled no affirmative defense pursuant to Code Ann. § 81A-108 (c). However, he denies liability, contending that the parties understood delivery of the note, which was executed as payment for the plaintiffs interest in an insolvent limited partnership, to be conditional on the firm’s attainment of “fiscal health.” The note itself calls unconditionally for repayment in specified installments due on specified dates. Held:

1. In the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, parol evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict the express terms of a promissory note. See, e.g., Cobb Bank & Trust Co. v. Henry, 246 Ga. 225 (271 SE2d 444) (1980); Motz v. National Bank of Ga., 156 Ga. App. 871 (275 SE2d 809) (1981).

2. Although the defendant contends that he can establish a defense of non est factum, he admits executing the note and does not allege that it has been altered in any way. Thus, he clearly has no such defense. See generally Code §§ 20-801; 109A-3 — 307.

3. Since the defendant has raised no legally cognizable defense, the trial court was correct in granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 S.E.2d 27, 159 Ga. App. 684, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyson-v-henson-gactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack