From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simpson v. Wages

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 13, 1969
167 S.E.2d 213 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)

Opinion

44181.

ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1969.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 1969. REHEARING DENIED MARCH 7, 1969.

Action on note. DeKalb Civil and Criminal Court. Before Judge Smith.

Powell, Goldstein, Frazer Murphy, Wayne Shortridge, Ronald Stallings, for appellant.

Carley Ramsay, George H. Carley, for appellees.


Code Ann. § 109A-3-118 (e) (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 245) provides: "Unless the instrument otherwise specifies two or more persons who sign as maker, acceptor or drawer or indorser and as a part of the same transaction are jointly and severally liable even though the instrument contains such words as `I promise to pay.'" Where as in the case sub judice there is a negotiable instrument containing the words "we promise to pay" and signed by three parties, absent any specific provision to the contrary, the three co-makers are jointly and severally liable under the provisions of this Code section. Ghitter v. Edge, 118 Ga. App. 750 (2) ( 165 S.E.2d 598). See Official Comment, 2 U. L. A. — U. C. C., § 3-118 (e), p. 54; 4 Encyc. of Ga. Law, Commercial Code § 146, pp. 251, 252. Hence, an action against two of the three co-makers on the note was sustainable even though the other co-maker was dismissed as a party defendant. The trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the two defendants and overruling the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed. Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1969 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 1969 — REHEARING DENIED MARCH 7, 1969 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.


Summaries of

Simpson v. Wages

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 13, 1969
167 S.E.2d 213 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)
Case details for

Simpson v. Wages

Case Details

Full title:SIMPSON v. WAGES et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Feb 13, 1969

Citations

167 S.E.2d 213 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)
167 S.E.2d 213

Citing Cases

Hubert v. Lawson

1. Code § 109A-3 — 118 provides in part: "The following rules apply to every instrument: ... (e) Unless the…

Edgar v. Edgar Casket Co.

Under the rule formerly in effect, the note was prima facie a joint and not a joint and several undertaking.…