Legal Opinion

Beasley v. Howard

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 19, 1925No. 16017PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Beü, J.

1. The bill of exceptions is not subject to dismissal merely because it fails to specify all of the material parts of the. record. Atlanta Suburban Land Corp. v. Austin, 122 Ga. 374 (1), 377 (50 S. E. 124). See Mason v. Terrell, 3 Ga. App. 348 (5), 355 (60 S. E. 4).

2. While an acceptance of a bill of exchange, as well as a promise to answer for the debt of another, must, in order to be enforceable under the statute of frauds, be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith (Civil Code of 1910, § 3222, subsections 2, 8), yet in a suit upon a contract to which the statute…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kiser Co. v. PadrickCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  2. Atlanta Suburban Land Corp. v. AustinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  3. Mason v. TerrellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  4. Bentley v. JohnsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
  5. Lewin v. Greig, Jones & WoodSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. City of Atlanta v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
  2. North v. NorthCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API