Young v. Holsenbeck

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Young v. Holsenbeck

99 S.E. 140, 23 Ga. App. 640, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 251

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 19, 1919

Docket10078

StatusPublished

This text of 99 S.E. 140 (Young v. Holsenbeck) 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

Young v. Holsenbeck, 99 S.E. 140, 23 Ga. App. 640, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 251 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

To a suit on a promissory note the maker pleaded material alterations such as would work his discharge. While he did not profess to have a clear and distinct recollection as to what was the form of the note when signed by him eight years previously, he did swear that he did not think that the alleged material addition in question was embraced in the note at that time; and as this evidence was to some extent corroborated by his testimony that the alleged material alteration was contrary to the distinct understanding then had as to the terms of the agreement, and also by evidence of other parties relative to the physical appearance of the instrument, the verdict in his favor, which has the approval of the trial judge, will not be disturbed. Atlanta National Bank v. Bateman, 21 Ga. App. 624 (2) (94 S. E. 853).

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Jenkins, J.

To a suit on a promissory note the maker pleaded material alterations such as would work his discharge. While he did not profess to have a clear and distinct recollection as to what was the form of the note when signed by him eight years previously, he did swear that he did not think that the alleged material addition in question was embraced in the note at that time; and as this evidence was to some extent corroborated by his testimony that the alleged material alteration was contrary to the distinct understanding then had as to the terms of the agreement, and also by evidence of other parties relative to the physical appearance of the instrument, the verdict in his favor, which has the approval of the trial judge, will not be disturbed. Atlanta National Bank v. Bateman, 21 Ga. App. 624 (2) (94 S. E. 853).

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 140, 23 Ga. App. 640, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-holsenbeck-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack