Legal Opinion
Hall v. Eufaula Brick Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided February 1, 1935No. 24008PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMacIntyre, J.
1. The court directed a verdict against tie defendant on a draft drawn in plaintiff’s favor and signed in tlie name of the defendant by one Beasley. To the suit on the draft the defendant interposed his plea of non est factum. '“The plea of non est factum is a denial of the execution of the instrument sued upon, and applies to notes and other instruments, as well as deeds, and applies only when the execution of the instrument is alleged to be the act of the party filing the plea, or adopted by him.” Civil Code (1910), § 5676. A plea of non est factum positively denying the execution of the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Martin v. Lamb & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- Hightower v. HightowerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
- Jewell v. WalkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Emory v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1875
- Robinson v. Woodruff Machinery Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lee v. HolmanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Clark v. Calhoun National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- H. J. McGrath Co. v. MobleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
- H. J. McGrath Company v. MobleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
- Elliott v. LevyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.