Legal Opinion

Cotterill v. Hopkins

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 18, 1935No. 10421PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bell, Justice.

1. “The compromise of a doubtful claim is a sufficient consideration to support a promissory note fairly given in settlement of the controversy.” Johnson v. Redwine, 98 Ga. 112 (25 S. E. 924) ; City Electric Ry. Co. v. Floyd County, 115 Ga. 655 (42 S. E. 45) ; Belt v. Lazenby, 126 Ga. 767 (2) (56 S. E. 81) ; Preston v. Ham, 156 Ga. 223 (1 d) (119 S. E. 658) ; Civil Code (1910), § 4330.

2. A contract will not be so construed as to authorise one of the parties to abrogate it by his own default, “unless it be plain and manifest that such was the intention of the parties.” Finlay v.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Stewart v. Griffith Ex Rel. BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  2. Belt v. LazenbySupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
  3. Preston v. HamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
  4. Central Oil Co. v. Southern Refining Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  5. City Electric Railway Co. v. Floyd CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1902

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Barber v. Atlas Concrete Pools, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
  2. Allen v. LankfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
  3. Murray v. Edes Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API