Matthews v. Bates

• Decision Date: 27 January 1894
• Citation: 20 S.E. 320,93 Ga. 319
• Parties: MATTHEWS v. BATES et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

20 S.E. 320

93 Ga. 319

MATTHEWS v. BATES et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 27, 1894

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The action being upon a promissory note, which was the only evidence introduced for the plaintiff, and there being no plea of non est factum, there was no error in refusing to allow counsel for defendant to introduce evidence tending to show the note was in fact signed by another person, having the same name as the defendant.

2. As to the other questions made by the motion for a new trial, this case is controlled by Matthews v. Bates (just decided) 20 S.E. by Matthews v. Bates (just decided) ubi supra.

Error from superior court, Madison county; George F. Gober, Judge.

Action by Edwin Bates & Co. against J. H. Matthews on a promissory note. Judgment for plaintiffs. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

D. W. Meadow and Berry T. Moseley, for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Simpkins and H. C. Tuck, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed.