Sikes v. Payton
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Appeal; from Tift superior court—Judge Eve. August 8, 1918.
1Opinion of the CourtLuke, J.
1. Where the actual consideration of an unconditional promise to pay is not integrated in the instrument, its only recital as to consideration being the general phrase “for value received,” the general rule, that the real consideration is ordinarily a proper subject-matter of inquiry where the controversy is between the original parties, does not authorize the promisor, unless fraud, accident, or mistake exist, to plead that his unconditional obligation to pay was conditional upon the happening of contingencies; and such a plea, being fatally defective, was properly stricken on motion. Hirsch…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pryor v. Ludden & Bates Southern Music HouseSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Hirsch v. OliverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
- Rheney v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
- Byrd & Co. v. Marietta Fertilizer Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Dinkler v. BaerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Tennille Banking Co. v. WardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Skeffington v. RowlandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Thomas v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938