Legal Opinion
Tennille Banking Co. v. Ward
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided February 20, 1923No. 13468PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The trade acceptance or inland bill of exchange sued upon shows affirmatively that it was accepted by the drawee (the Tennille Yarn Mills), and therefore the contract of the defendant (the drawer) was one of suretyship. The case of Bank of Richland v. Nicholson, 120 Ga. 622 (48 S. E. 240), which was a suit upon an inland bill of exchange, is authority for this statement. It was held in that case that “ The contract of the drawer is that if the drawee does not accept he will pay, and that if the drawee does not pay after acceptance he will. See, in this connection, Manry v. Waxelbaum, 108 Ga.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Bullard v. BrewerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Manry v. Waxelbaum Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Johnson v. CobbSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Martin v. MonroeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Hirsch v. OliverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Turpin v. North American Acceptance Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- Growth Properties of Florida, Ltd. v. WallaceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
- Blalock v. Central Bank of GeorgiaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
- McIntyre v. Zac-Lac Paint & Lacquer Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Indiano v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1971
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.