Legal Opinion

O'Quinn v. Carter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 9, 1925No. 16022PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.

1. “If the fact of suretyship does not appear on the face of a note, it may be proved by parol; and the relative position of the makers’ names is immaterial, if one is surety of the other.” Trammell v. Swift Fertilizer Works, 121 Ga. 778 (49 S. E. 739). Where a tenant and a landlord both sign a mortgage note for the purchase of a mule, apparently as joint makers, but it is agreed between them that the tenant is to “buy” the animal, and the landlord is to “endorse his note for same,” and the tenant accordingly so purchased the mule, the landlord is a surety and not a joint maker.

2. Where the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Parks v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  2. Trammell v. Swift Fertilizer WorksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  3. Brimberry v. MansfieldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
  4. Rodgers v. BlackSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
  5. Phillips v. FreemanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Conley v. KelleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
  2. Ehlers v. ButlerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
  3. Wilson v. SheppardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API