Kent v. Hair
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtFelton, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) Assuming that the Tennessee statute is open to the construction that the release of a cosurety or co-obligor does not release the other surety or obligor when the parties other than those not released stipulate that such other surety or obligor be not released, such a construction is contrary to the public policy of this State, as expressed by the Code, §§ 20-910, 103-201, and will not be enforced. Code, § 102-110; Shore Acres Properties Inc. v. Morgan, 44 Ga. App. 128 (160 S. E. 705); Sally v. Bank of Union, 150 Ga. 281 (3) (103 S. E. 400); Ulman, Magill…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ulman, Magill & Jordan Woolen Co. v. MagillSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
- Sally v. Bank of UnionSupreme Court of Georgia · 1920
- State ex rel. Allen v. EnglandWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1920
- Shore Acres Properties Inc. v. MorganCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cocke v. TruslowCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
- Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. FimianCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
- Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. FimianCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951