Legal Opinion

Prontaut v. Lorick & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided January 20, 1916No. 6501, 6502PublishedCited by 3 opinions

■■ • Complaint; from city court of Richmond county — Judge W. F. Eve. March 19, 1916.

1Opinion of the CourtRussell, C. J.

1. The note sued on showed upon its face that it was not a ■ subscription to corporate stock, but was an evidence of indebtedness for stock purchased from a person other than the corporation itself.

2. When a sealed note is sued on and the petition nevertheless recites the consideration, it is permissible for the plaintiff to strike, by amendment, the allegation as to consideration. Such an amendment does not change the cause of action.

3. While parol evidence is admissible to show that the consideration of a note or other instrument is different from that expressed in the writing, except when…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Moore v. GarlandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kiser v. WestbrookCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
  2. Bloodworth v. WoodwardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
  3. Georgia Life Insurance v. LasseterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916

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

Powered by the Exa API