Legal Opinion

Kent v. Hair

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 22, 1939No. 27623PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Ulman, Magill & Jordan Woolen Co. v. MagillSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
  2. Sally v. Bank of UnionSupreme Court of Georgia · 1920
  3. State ex rel. Allen v. EnglandWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Shore Acres Properties Inc. v. MorganCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cocke v. TruslowCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
  2. Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. FimianCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
  3. Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. FimianCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API