White v. Cates Realty Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

White v. Cates Realty Co.

186 S.E.2d 591, 125 Ga. App. 129, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 759

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 1, 1971

Docket46667

StatusPublished

This text of 186 S.E.2d 591 (White v. Cates Realty 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

White v. Cates Realty Co., 186 S.E.2d 591, 125 Ga. App. 129, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 759 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

The appellee filed a claim against the appellant on an unconditional promissory note. The appellant filed an answer in which he alleged: (1) that there was a failure of consideration; (2) that the payment of the note was conditional. Held:

1. "It is true, of course, that the maker of a note when sued, has the right to show by parol, if he can, a want or failure of consideration, but he will not be allowed to prove that his obligation to pay was dependent or conditional upon the promisee’s compliance with a prior or contemporaneous agreement not expressed in the note, unless the execution of the note was induced by fraud, accident, or mistake.” Lee v. Garland, 208 Ga. 251 (1) (66 SE2d 223), and cases therein cited.

Therefore, it was not error to exclude parol evidence which would have changed the unconditional promissory note into a conditional obligation.

2. While the appellant argues that he was not allowed to introduce evidence as to a failure of consideration, the evidence excluded was in regard to the extrinsic condition precedent and not to a failure of consideration.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Evans, J., concur. Hilliard & Head, H. Garland Head, III, for appellant. Carnes & White, James A. White, Jr., for appellee.

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