Williams v. Garrett

124 S.E. 811, 32 Ga. App. 762, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 637
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 7, 1924·No. 15506·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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] constitutes 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

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

124 S.E. 811 (Williams v. Garrett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)