Mangham v. Hotel & Restaurant Supply Co., 40090
| Decision Date | 04 June 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 40090,40090,2 |
| Parties | W. G. MANGHAM v. HOTEL & RESTAURANT SUPPLY COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Claude Hambrick, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Sam G. Dettelbach, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Where one person executes and delivers to another separate and distinct promissory notes, each note constitutes a separate and distinct cause of action, and after maturity of all the notes the payee may bring separate suits upon them, or he may exercise the privilege of joinder accorded by Code, § 3-113, and sue upon all of the notes in one action. Parris v. Hightower, 76 Ga. 631(2); Starnes v. Mutual Loan & Banking Co., 102 Ga. 597, 598(5), 29 S.E. 452; International Agr. Corp. v. Powell, 31 Ga.App. 348, 349(5), 120 S.E. 668; Morrow v. Fitzpatrick, 34 Ga.App. 801, 131 S.E. 189. Therefore, the defendant's plea in which he contended that the plaintiff's suit upon a promissory note in this case was barred because the plaintiff had previously sued him on two other promissory notes at a time when the note sued upon in this case was 'past due'; and that the failure of the plaintiff to include in the previous action the note sued upon in this case amounted to splitting a cause of action, set up no valid defense, and the court did not err in dismissing the plea (it being the only defense filed) and in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Lawrence v. Stephens, 20 Ga.App. 279, 92 S.E. 952.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leiter v. Arnold, s. 42085
...may exercise the privilege of joinder accorded by Code § 3-113 and sue upon the checks in one action (Mangham v. Hotel & Restaurant Supply Co., 107 Ga.App. 882, 131 S.E.2d 853), it is necessary that each of the causes of action be embraced in a separate count. See Lance v. Boroughs, 213 Ga.......
-
Tatum v. Bank of Cumming
...sue on all notes which the appellants may have executed, but could bring a separate suit on any one of them. Mangham v. Hotel, etc., Supply Co., 107 Ga.App. 882, 131 S.E.2d 853. The evidence is sufficient and not conflicting; viewed from the point most favorable to the appellants, the evide......