Legal Opinion

Rogers v. Rogers

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 6, 1936No. 25196PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSutton, J.

In a suit on a note, where the defendant denies the execution of the note by a plea of non est factum, the burden of proving the execution of the note is on the plaintiff. Lowe Cracker Co. v. Ginn, 94 Ga. 408 (20 S. E. 106); Stanton v. Burge, 34 Ga. 435; Thompson v. Kelsey, 8 Ga. App. 23 (68 S. E. 518). The plaintiff testified that, while he was not an expert, in his opinion the purported signature of the defendant to the note and her admitted signature to the verified plea of non est factum, were the same, although he did not know that the defendant signed the note and could not swear that…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wilson v. BarnardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
  2. Vizard v. MoodySupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  3. Thompson v. KelseyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1910
  4. Stanton v. BurgeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1866
  5. Bessman v. GirardeySupreme Court of Georgia · 1880

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Youngblood v. RuisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
  2. Vining v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
  3. Credit Equipment Corp. v. SteinerOhio Court of Appeals · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API