Legal Opinion

Lovvorn v. Favor

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 1, 1929No. 19329PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

1. An administrator may, in a suit instituted by him in his representative capacity, recover on a note payable to himself personally, by alleging and proving that the debt was contracted for and on behalf of, and was due to, the estate of his intestate. Daniel v. Hollingshead, 16 Ga. 190 (2); Roush v. First National Bank, 102 Ga. 109 (29 S. E. 144).

2. A promissory note payable to a named person described in the note simply as “guardian” is a note payable to the named individual in his individual capacity. The word “guardian” after the name is mere descriptio personae. Saffold v. Banks, 69 Ga.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kennedy v. GeldersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
  2. Saffold v. BanksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
  3. Daniel v. HollingsheadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1854
  4. Zellner v. ClevelandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
  5. Roush v. First National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Shingler v. FurstSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  2. Rountree v. SimmonsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
  3. Rountree v. SimmonsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API