Legal Opinion
Fricks v. Rome Mercantile Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided July 9, 1934No. 23601PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBroyles, C. J.
The Rome Mercantile Company brought a joint suit against J. B. Isbell and Lula Fricks for the balance alleged to be due on a promissory note. Lula Fricks filed a plea denying any indebtedness. Isbell made no answer to the suit. It appears from the copy of the note attached to the petition that the note was executed by Isbell, and that Lula Fricks signed her name on the back, presumably as an indorser or surety, and that presumption is not rebutted by anything in the record. It also appears from the record that Isbell was -duly served with a copy of the petition and process. IJpon the trial,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Norris v. PollardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1886
- Marietta Fertilizer Co. v. GaryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
- Houston v. Ladies' Union Branch Ass'nSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Gartrell v. JohnsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Lewis v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Georgia · 1872
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Gowdey v. REM AssociatesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
- Fricks v. JR Watkins CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
- The Hardaway Company, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Amwest Surety Insurance Company, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1993
- Fricks v. Watkins Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1954