Underwood v. Savannah Chemical Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Underwood v. Savannah Chemical Co.

89 S.E. 154, 18 Ga. App. 194, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 219

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 30, 1916

Docket7023

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.E. 154 (Underwood v. Savannah Chemical Co.) 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

Underwood v. Savannah Chemical Co., 89 S.E. 154, 18 Ga. App. 194, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 219 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Brotues, J.

1. In the bill of exceptions (which was a direct bill of exceptions to the direction of a verdict and to various rulings upon the trial, no motion for a new trial having been made) there was no assignment of error upon the sustaining of the demurrers to the defendant’s amended plea and answer; and therefore that ruling is not presented for the consideration of this court.

2. No reversible error upon the trial appears; and, there being no other result legally attainable under the evidence adduced, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff on the notes (for fertilizer) sued upon.

3. When a promissory note contains an agreement to pay “all costs of [195]*195collection, including 10 per cent, attorney’s fees,” the attorney’s fees so provided for amount to 10 per cent, on the principal and interest of the note. Hamilton v. Rogers, 126 Ga. 27 (2) (54 S. E. 926); Morgan v. Kiser & Co., 105 Ga. 104 (31 S. E. 45). There being in the notes sued on in this case the foregoing stipulation as to attorney’s fees, the verdict, which included attorney’s fees upon the principal and interest of the notes, was not for that reason erroneous. Judgment affirmed.

Decided May 30, 1916.

Complaint; from city court of Hazlehurst — Judge Grant. August 20, 1915.

L. O. Underwood, P. L. Smith, S. D. Dell, for plaintiff in error. Bennett & Swain, contra.

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

Brotues, J.

1. In the bill of exceptions (which was a direct bill of exceptions to the direction of a verdict and to various rulings upon the trial, no motion for a new trial having been made) there was no assignment of error upon the sustaining of the demurrers to the defendant’s amended plea and answer; and therefore that ruling is not presented for the consideration of this court.

2. No reversible error upon the trial appears; and, there being no other result legally attainable under the evidence adduced, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff on the notes (for fertilizer) sued upon.

3. When a promissory note contains an agreement to pay “all costs of [195]*195collection, including 10 per cent, attorney’s fees,” the attorney’s fees so provided for amount to 10 per cent, on the principal and interest of the note. Hamilton v. Rogers, 126 Ga. 27 (2) (54 S. E. 926); Morgan v. Kiser & Co., 105 Ga. 104 (31 S. E. 45). There being in the notes sued on in this case the foregoing stipulation as to attorney’s fees, the verdict, which included attorney’s fees upon the principal and interest of the notes, was not for that reason erroneous. Judgment affirmed.

Decided May 30, 1916.

Complaint; from city court of Hazlehurst — Judge Grant. August 20, 1915.

L. O. Underwood, P. L. Smith, S. D. Dell, for plaintiff in error. Bennett & Swain, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 154, 18 Ga. App. 194, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/underwood-v-savannah-chemical-co-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack