Frost v. Hunter
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Nichols, Judge.
1. In support of the general grounds of her motion for new trial the plaintiff argues that the defendants, in their answer, alleged that they did not sign the note sued on but that they did sign another note which they alleged had been paid, and that their defense was not proved since they, in admitting a prima facie case, must have admitted having signed the note sued on.
It is well settled that when a party admits a prima facie case in an action on a note he admits executing the note and that the plaintiff is the legal holder thereof. See Mobley v. Christian, 38 Ga. App. 655…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ivey v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. McCamyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1945
- State Highway Bd. of Georgia v. ColemanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
- Holsenbeck v. ArnoldCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
- Dye v. RichardsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1954
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.