Parker v. Parrish
| Decision Date | 23 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 6744. |
| Citation | 89 S.E. 381,18 Ga.App. 258 |
| Parties | PARKER v. PARRISH. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
When the defendant to a suit on a promissory note admits a prima facie case and pleads set-off or recoupment, the plaintiff is not required to file a replication in order to contest the justice of the plea.
In charging the jury upon the issues involved on the trial of a case of the character above described, it is the duty of the presiding judge to submit to the jury the contentions of the plaintiff in reply to such plea or pleas, taking such contentions from the evidence.
In charging upon the contentions of the parties to this case, the presiding judge submitted them fairly to the jury, and did not express any opinion upon the evidence.
The law will not relieve parties from the results of their negligence in failing to read a contract which was not made under a disability or an emergency or induced by the fraud of the other party.
The evidence in this case shows that the person signing the contract could read and write, and that at the time of the signing of the contract he suffered no disability and no emergency is shown. The fact that such a contract was signed after the other party to the contract had stated that the contract in question was a duplicate of a former contract will not, in law, relieve the party so signing of the necessity of reading the contract. Under such circumstances the law will not relieve the maker of his negligence in so signing.
The evidence shows that, after the signing of the original contract the parties agreed that another contract, satisfactory to the defendant, would be made. Subsequently a new contract was prepared and the plaintiff signed it without reading it. Under the evidence the plaintiff was bound by the new contract; and the verdict, being contrary to this view, is contrary to law.
Error from City Court of Americus; W. M. Harper, Judge.
Action between H. H. Parker and M. T. Parrish. From the judgment, Parker brings error. Reversed.
Shipp & Sheppard, of Americus, for plaintiff in error.
Wallis & Fort, of Americus, for defendant in error.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCommons v. Greene County
...agreed on; that he signed the contract at a time when he was busy." See Harrison v. Lee, 13 Ga.App. 346, 79 S.E. 211; Parker v. Parrish, 18 Ga.App. 258, 89 S.E. 381; Weaver v. Roberson, 134 Ga. 149, 67 S.E. Gunter v. Edmonds, 149 Ga. 518, 101 S.E. 118; Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Taggart, ......
-
Mccommons v. Greene County
...agreed on; that he signed the contract at a time when he was busy." See Harrison v. Lee, 13 Ga. App. 346, 79 S.E. 211; Parker v. Parrish, 18 Ga.App. 258, 89 S.E. 381; Weaver v. Roberson, 134 Ga. 149, 67 S.E. 662; Gunter v. Edmonds, 149 Ga. 518, 101 S.E. 118; Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Tag......
-
Twyman v. Avera Loan & Inv. Co
...20 Ga. App. 766, 93 S. E. 233(1); Sloan v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, 20 Ga. App. 123 (a), 125 (a), 92 S. E. 893; Parker v. Parrish, 18 Ga. App. 258 (2), 89 S. E. 381; Bostwick v. Duncan, 60 Ga. 384; Radcliffe v. Biles, 94 Ga. 480, 20 S. E. 359; Jossey v. Ga. S. & F. Ry. Co., 109 Ga. 439, ......
-
Twyman v. Avera Loan & Inv. Co.
... ... Bixler ... Co., 20 Ga.App. 766, 93 S.E. 233(1); Sloan v ... Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, 20 Ga.App. 123 (a), ... 125 (a), 92 S.E. 893; Parker v. Parrish, 18 Ga.App ... 258 (2), 89 S.E. 381; Bostwick v. Duncan, 60 Ga ... 384; Radcliffe v. Biles, 94 Ga. 480, 20 S.E. 359; ... Jossey v ... ...