Whitfield v. Cohutta Banking Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
1. The negotiable character of an unconditional promissory note-due on a date named is not destroyed by a stipulation therein that “time may be extended without notice to any of the sureties of this note." Such stipulation expresses no agreement to extend the maturity for a certain or an uncertain time, but leaves the matter optional with the holder or open to subsequent agreement between him and the maker, so that he may demand payment at the time specified. In such a case the stipulation does not affect the time of payment as fixed in the instrument, nor in anywise impair its negotiability.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Haug v. RileySupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Stitzel v. MillerIllinois Supreme Court · 1911
- Hicks v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Harrell v. National Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. BrandenburgSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.