Bond v. Harrison
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Russell, O. J.
1. The testimony of a party that he or she signed a note or security deed as surety is not subject to the objection that it is a conclusion of the witness. “ Statement of a maker, as to whether he signed a note as surety, is not a conclusion.” Campton v. Smith, 120 Ala. 233 (25 So. 300). See also Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Eskew, 86 Ga. 641, 646 (2) (12 S. E. 1061, 22 Am. St. R. 490); Smith v. Satilla Pecan Orchard Co., 152 Ga. 538, 544 (110 S. E. 303); Mashburn v. Dannenberg Co., 117 Ga. 567 (44 S. E. 97). The court erred in excluding the testimony referred to.
2. Under the evidence…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mashburn & Co. v. Dannenberg Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. EskewSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Smith v. Satilla Pecan Orchard & Stock Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1922
- Compton v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
3Cited by7 opinions
- Barron v. ChambleeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Young v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
- Bond v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Bond v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Bond v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.