Legal Opinion
Dunnaway v. Fort
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided January 7, 1935No. 24133PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
1. The prohibition in the Civil Code (1910), § 3007, against a married woman’s binding her separate estate by “any contract of suretyship” covers such a contract in behalf of any other person as well as the husband.' Saulsbury v. Weaver, 59 Ga. 254. Superficial appearance will not successfully conceal the true inwardness of an illegal transaction by a married woman (Gross v. Smith, 31 Ga. App. 95, 119 S. E. 541; Rhodes v. Gunn, 34 Ga. App. 115 (2), 128 S. E. 213); and so it follows that, if a married woman gives a note and mortgage apparently as principal, but really as a mere surety for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Ferst's Sons & Co. v. Bank of WaycrossSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Saulsbury, Respess & Co. v. WeaverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1877
- Freeman v. Coleman, Ray & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Finch v. BarclaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Villa Rica Lumber Co. v. ParatainSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nalley Land & Investment Co. v. Merchants & Planters BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Bowden v. GrimsleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
- Pickett v. Bank of EllijayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936