Thomason v. Swift Fertilizer Works
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Complaint; from city court of Bainbridge — Judge Harrell. September 24, 1909. The action was upon promissory notes executed by the defendant to the Swift Fertilizer Works, the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Complaint; from city court of Bainbridge — Judge Harrell. September 24, 1909. The action was upon promissory notes executed by the defendant to the Swift Fertilizer Works, the plaintiff. The defendant’s plea, which, on general demurrer, the court struck, admits the execution of the notes, but denies his liability on them, “for the reasons hereinafter set out.” . The plea continues as follows: “3. For further plea, defendant says, that said notes were given for the purchase of fertilizers from plaintiff for the 3'-ear 1908, being for 24 tons in one car of a standard grade, for use under corn…
1Opinion of the CourtRussell, J.
The defendant’s plea failing to present any issuable defense, tlie demurrer thereto was properly sustained. V Judgment affirmed.
Citations by counsel: Acte 1901, p. 65; Acts 1903, p. 94; 4 Ga. App. 232, 234; 132 Ga. 533-4; 114 Ga. 666, 668; 94 Ga. 14; 83 Ga. 33; 62 Ga. 617; 54 Ga. 490. R. G. Harts field, for plaintiff in error. Tye, Peeples, Bryan & Jordan, contra.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cooper v. National Fertilizer Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Allen v. YoungSupreme Court of Georgia · 1879
- Jones v. Cordele Guano Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1894
- Griner v. Baggs & PerryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Scott & Co. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Prescott v. Seacoast Fertilizer Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923