Legal Opinion

Finch v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 17, 1937No. 25918Published

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, P. J.

1. A contract between the payee of a note and the principal debtor, which would operate to release the surety on the ground that, the time of payment of the note has been extended without the surety’s consent, must be a contract between the payee and the principal debtor for a valuable consideration for an extension by the payee of the time of payment, and the extension must be for a definite period. Woolfolk v. Plant, 46 Ga. 422 (2); Bunn v. Commercial Bank, 98 Ga. 647 (26 S. E. 63); Tanner v. Gude, 100 Ga. 157 (27 S. E. 938); Alsobrook v. Taylor, 181 Ga. 10 (5) (181 S. E. 182); Ver Nooy v.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Alsobrook v. TaylorSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
  2. Bunn v. Commercial BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
  3. Middle Georgia & Atlantic Railroad v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
  4. Tanner v. GudeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
  5. Woolfolk v. I. C. Plant & SonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1872

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

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

Powered by the Exa API