Widincamp v. Glennville Bank

120 S.E. 665, 31 Ga. App. 387, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 956
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 7, 1923·No. 15071·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Bell, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

The answer failed to show that the note sued on was without consideration. The defendant was originally liable on the note of anpther as indorser and thi§ liability furnished a consideration in [388] succession for each of the notes given thereafter in renewal. Also the plea was insufficient as a plea of fraud. Sasser v. McGovern, 11 Ga. App. 88 (74 S. E. 797); Haymans v. Bennett, 29 Ga. App. 265 (114 S. E. 923); Tennille Banking Co. v. Ward, 29 Ga. App. 660 (116 S. E. 347).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Widincamp v. Glennville Bank, 120 S.E. 665, 31 Ga. App. 387, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 956 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

120 S.E. 665 (Widincamp v. Glennville Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Minor v. Citizens & Southern National Bank
338 S.E.2d 466 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)