Williams v. Garrett

124 S.E. 811, 32 Ga. App. 762, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 637
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 7, 1924
Docket15506
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 S.E. 811 (Williams v. Garrett) 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
Williams v. Garrett, 124 S.E. 811, 32 Ga. App. 762, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 637 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Where one convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to pay a specified fine or serve a specified time in the gang procured another person to sign with him a promissory note in satisfaction thereof, and to execute a deed to secure the payment of the note, and the note and the deed were accepted by the solicitor-general as the equivalent of cash, the consideration was not illegal, and in a suit thereon a plea to that effect was properly stricken on demurrer. Blain v. Hitch, 70 Ga. 275.

2. In a suit on a promissory note, a plea alleging fraudulent conduct on the part of a person other than the payee and not in privity with him [763]*763constitutes no issuable defense, and is properly stricken on demurrer. Roth v. Donnelly Grocery Co., 8 Ga. App. 851 (2) (70 S. E. 140).

Decided October 7, 1924. 8. M. Mathews, for plaintiff in error. C. H. Garrett, John J. McCreary, c.ontra.

3. The recoi'd discloses no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodioorth, J., concur.

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

Related

Darien Naval Stores Co. v. Hoff
175 S.E. 420 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Utah State National Bank v. Stringer
258 P. 522 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 S.E. 811, 32 Ga. App. 762, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-garrett-gactapp-1924.