Bryan v. Tooke
Supreme Court of Georgia
Partnership. "Witness. Contracts. Before Judge Crisp. Houston Superior Court. November Term, 1877. To the report contained in the decision it is only necessary to add that two of the grounds in the motion for new trial were as follows : (1.) Because the court allowed Dennard (the partner pleading non est factum) to testify as to matters which occurred prior to the death of Parr, (the partner who signed the note), over objections of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Partnership. "Witness. Contracts. Before Judge Crisp. Houston Superior Court. November Term, 1877. To the report contained in the decision it is only necessary to add that two of the grounds in the motion for new trial were as follows : (1.) Because the court allowed Dennard (the partner pleading non est factum) to testify as to matters which occurred prior to the death of Parr, (the partner who signed the note), over objections of plaintiff. (2.) Because the court charged “ that Bryan should have conferred with Dennard and got his consent before he took the note, or before he could bind…
1Opinion of the Court
Warner, Chief Justice.
The plaintiff brought this action on a promissory note for the sum of $4,673, payable to the order of the plaintiff, dated 11th of January, 1875, and due twelve months after date, with ten per cent, interest, which note was signed “ Tooke, Parr & Dennard.” The defendant Dennard pleaded *438non est factiom,, and alleged that the note sued on was not signed by him, nor was the same signed with his knowledge, consent, or authority; that said note was given in renewal of a debt due to the plaintiff by Tooke & Parr, or by Tooke & Cooper, for which this defendant, nor the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Field v. WalkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1867
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sumter County v. PritchettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
- Elliott v. National Union Radio Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1943