Villa Rica Lumber Co. v. Paratain

17 S.E. 340, 92 Ga. 370
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 3, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 17 S.E. 340 (Villa Rica Lumber Co. v. Paratain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Villa Rica Lumber Co. v. Paratain, 17 S.E. 340, 92 Ga. 370 (Ga. 1893).

Opinion

[371]*371 Judgment reversed.

Robertson testified: He was a member of the plaintiff firm. The note was not given to plaintiff as security for a debt due it by Holcombe. Holcombe had been buying supplies for his family and hands and stock from plaintiff, and plaintiff had been buying his lumber. About the middle of August, 1889, Holcombe had to shut down his mill because he could not pay his debts, nor get his engine, and on August 17th, plaintiff quit furnishing him supplies. Then he stated to plaintiff he could get his sister and mother-in-law to give plaintiff their notes secured by mortgages, if plaintiff would advance the money and pay his debts, which plaintiff agreed to do; and the notes and mortgages were executed and delivered. At that time Holcombe owed plaintiff about $70 for supplies already furnished. The notes were delivered on August 29th. The note on Angie Holcombe was for the $70 and for some money plaintiff had already advanced for freight on the engine and for Holcombe’s hands. The note of defendant was for money which plaintiff afterwards advanced. At the time the notes were delivered, plaintiff did not advance the money but gave its obligations for different amounts to the different parties, and on its next regular pay-day advanced the money in accordance with these obligations. The consideration of defendant’s note was $90 paid one McClung for timber for Holcombe, money paid his hands, and money paid for having his engine repaired, all of which was advanced after the note was executed and delivered. Plaintiff had no claim against Holcombe for any of the money so advanced, and it was distinctly understood that it was not to look to him for said money, that it would advance the money on the notes and expect the makers to pay them. Plaintiff never saw the makers until after the notes were executed, Holcombe representing them in the transaction and in directing where the money should be paid which was to be advanced. After the notes were delivered and the amounts of Holcombe’s debts, as presented to plaintiff, were added up, it was found that the notes amounted to ninety-five cents more than the debts which -were to be paid, and plaintiff then advanced the ninety-five cents to Holcombe. Other witnesses testified for plaintiff, corroborating Robertson. W. C. Hodnett and W. E. Spinks, for plaintiff. J. J. Northcutt and W. K. Fielder, for defendant.

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

Related

Bowden v. Grimsley
18 S.E.2d 683 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Stafford v. Birch
5 S.E.2d 744 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Johnson v. Hinson
4 S.E.2d 561 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Lovelady v. Moss
179 S.E. 168 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Dunnaway v. Fort
178 S.E. 163 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Montgomery v. Padgett
144 S.E. 41 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Tindol v. Breedlove
90 S.E. 977 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Booth v. Merchants Bank of Valdosta
72 S.E. 44 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Mohr v. Griffin
34 So. 378 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)
Nelms v. Keller
30 S.E. 572 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 S.E. 340, 92 Ga. 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villa-rica-lumber-co-v-paratain-ga-1893.