Yeargin v. Dye

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Yeargin v. Dye

78 S.E. 831, 13 Ga. App. 102, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 55

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 15, 1913

Docket4862

StatusPublished

This text of 78 S.E. 831 (Yeargin v. Dye) 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

Yeargin v. Dye, 78 S.E. 831, 13 Ga. App. 102, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 55 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

Where one agrees to pay the debt of another, and receives for his promise a valuable consideration, he is not released merely because, upon his failure to pay, the creditor, without a return of the consideration, agrees to look to the original debtor, instead of to the substituted debtor, for payment. The statements made by the creditor in the present case did not amount to an agreement to release the substituted debtor, and were admissible in evidence only for the purpose of illustsrating whether there had been an agreement by the defendant to pay the plaintiff the debt due him by a third person. There was no error in the instructions on this subject of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial. The defendant in effect admitted a promise to pay what the original debtor owed, and contended merely that he and the plaintiff had been unable to agree on the amount. The evidence fully authorized the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

Where one agrees to pay the debt of another, and receives for his promise a valuable consideration, he is not released merely because, upon his failure to pay, the creditor, without a return of the consideration, agrees to look to the original debtor, instead of to the substituted debtor, for payment. The statements made by the creditor in the present case did not amount to an agreement to release the substituted debtor, and were admissible in evidence only for the purpose of illustsrating whether there had been an agreement by the defendant to pay the plaintiff the debt due him by a third person. There was no error in the instructions on this subject of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial. The defendant in effect admitted a promise to pay what the original debtor owed, and contended merely that he and the plaintiff had been unable to agree on the amount. The evidence fully authorized the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 831, 13 Ga. App. 102, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yeargin-v-dye-gactapp-1913.