¶1The action being against the administrator of a married woman upon a promissory note signed by herself and her ¡husband, the defense to which was that she signed as surety only, and the evidence being conflicting as to whether in executing the note she contracted as a surety or as a principal in her own name and right, it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant. Judgment reversad.
99 Ga. 310
Hall v. Worley
Decided August 18, 1896
Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1896-08-18
Complaint on note. Before Judge Reese. Elbert superior court. September term, 1895. J. N. Hall sued the administrator of Mrs. E. 0. Hanes, deceased, upon a promissory note for $1,210 “for purchase money of land,” dated February 9, 1889, due December 25, 1889, and signed by E. C. TIanes and 0. 0. Hanes. Defendant pleaded, tbat Mrs. E. 0. Hanes signed tbe note as security for 0. 0. Hanes, who was her husband, and tbat tbe consideration of tibe note was money borrowed by 0. 0.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1901
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1896-08-18
View the full empirical analysis of this case →