Legal Opinion

Bedingfield v. Lamb

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 16, 1917No. 7845PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Certiorari; from Emanuel superior court—Judge Hardeman. August 2, 1916.

1Opinion of the CourtLuke, J.

A promise to answer for the debt of another must be in writing, in order to bind the promisor. Civil Code (1910), § 3222. This case falls squarely within the rule laid down in Harris v. Paulk, 10 Ga. App. 334 (73 S. E. 430), and Foote v. Reece, 17 Ga. App. 799 (88 S. E. 689), and is distinguished by the facts from the eases of Evans v. Griffin, 1 Ga. App. 327 (57 S. E. 921), and Palmetto Manufacturing Co. v. Parker, 123 Ga. 798 (51 S. E. 714), and Ferst v. Bank of Waycross, 111 Ga. 229 (36 S. E. 773). Under the facts the court did not err in sustaining the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Palmetto Mfg. Co. v. Parker & AndersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  2. Ferst's Sons & Co. v. Bank of WaycrossSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
  3. Evans v. GriffinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  4. Foote v. Reece & SonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
  5. Harris v. PaulkCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1912

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Butler v. GodleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
  2. Scheuer Bros. v. HushinskyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API