Glanton v. Whitaker
Supreme Court of Georgia
Promissory Notes. Consideration. Parent and Child. Advancements. Evidence. Before Judge Branham. Eloyd Superior Court. March Term. 1885. P. H. Whitaker and Ida M. Whitaker brought complaint against W. E. Gian ton, administrator of his wife, on a promissory note, dated December 12, 1877, for $1,650, principal, due twelve months after date, with interest from December 25, 1873, made by the defendant’s intestate to P. H. Whitaker, Sr., or bearer.
Read the full summary
Promissory Notes. Consideration. Parent and Child. Advancements. Evidence. Before Judge Branham. Eloyd Superior Court. March Term. 1885. P. H. Whitaker and Ida M. Whitaker brought complaint against W. E. Gian ton, administrator of his wife, on a promissory note, dated December 12, 1877, for $1,650, principal, due twelve months after date, with interest from December 25, 1873, made by the defendant’s intestate to P. H. Whitaker, Sr., or bearer. On it was endorsed a credit of $100, paid on December 12, 1877. The defendant pleaded the general issue, that the note was without sufficient…
1Opinion of the Court
Jackson, Chief Justice.
Suit on a promissory note, payable to one Whitaker or bearer, was brought by P. IT. and Ida M. Whitaker against Glanton, administrator on the estate of his wife, she being the maker of the note and the daughter of the payee.
To this action two pleas were filed: one that there was no consideration, and the other that when the note was given by the daughter, it was understood and agreed between her and her father that it should be held by him as an advancement, and that he had procured it thus by fraud. The court struck both pleas, leaving only the general issue, and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Levering v. RittenhouseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Parks v. ParksCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1863
- Barclay v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1877
- Tillotson v. . RaceNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Henderson v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1874
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Barron v. BarronSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935