Hammond v. Harris

• Decision Date: 20 January 1916
• Docket Number: 6549.
• Citation: 87 S.E. 711,17 Ga.App. 508
• Parties: HAMMOND v. HARRIS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

87 S.E. 711

17 Ga.App. 508

HAMMOND v. HARRIS.

No. 6549.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

January 20, 1916

Syllabus by the Court.

According to the allegations of the plaintiff's petition, properly construed, there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The promise, as alleged, was not made by the defendant to the plaintiff, but was made to a third person, and it was not enforceable by the plaintiff in his own name. The alleged promise, as set forth in the amendment to the petition, did not set forth a valid consideration in return for the defendant's alleged promise to pay the note. There was no agreement between the plaintiff and the creditor for a substitution. For these reasons the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition. Hawkins v. Central Ry. Co., 119 Ga. 160, 165, 167, 46 S.E. 82; Austell v. Humphries, 99 Ga. 408, 27 S.E. 736; Palmetto Co. v. Parker & Anderson, 123 Ga. 798, 801, 51 S.E. 714. As to the failure of consideration of the alleged promise of the widow to pay her husband's debt, see McCord v. Thompson, 131 Ga. 129, 61 S.E. 1121, and Smith v. Head, 75 Ga. 755.

Error from City Court of Polk County; J. K. Davis, Judge.

Action by W. F. Hammond against W. E. Harris. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Mundy & Mundy, of Rockmart, for plaintiff in error.

Ault & Wright, of Cedartown, for defendant in error.

RUSSELL, C.J.

Judgment affirmed.