Legal Opinion

Davis v. Griffeth Mule Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 19, 1924No. 14836Published

1Opinion of the Court

.Stephens, J.

1. Since the act of 1916 (Ga. L. 1916, p. 48), repealing the statute by which “all titles to property made as part of an usurious contract” were invalidated (Civil Code of 1910, § 3442), a waiver of homestead in a note infected with usury is not void, and the risk of a *87surety on tlie note is not, by reason of the note being secretly infected with usury, increased, and the surety therefore is not released. Laing v. Hinesville Bank, 31 Ga. App. 416 (120 S. E. 799).

Decided April 19, 1924. Clarence E. Adams, for plaintiffs in error. Berry T. Moseley, J. T. Murray, contra.

2. In a suit…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Laing v. Hinesville BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923

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

Powered by the Exa API