Patillo v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 12 April 1898 |
| Citation | 30 S.E. 644,105 Ga. 482 |
| Parties | PATILLO v. ALEXANDER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. When this case was here before (22 S.E. 646, 96 Ga. 60), it was ruled that, in the absence of evidence showing what was the law of Tennessee, the common law was presumed to be of force there, and that, according to the rules of the common law, the contract sued on being one of indorsement, the indorser was entitled to notice of a failure by the maker to pay the note at maturity. It appearing upon a second trial of the present case that there was no statutory law of the state of Tennessee defining the character of the contract in question, but that the same was governed by the rules of the common law, this court will adhere to its former decision, notwithstanding the court of last resort of that state had construed similar contracts differently under the rules of the common law.
2. It follows from the above that it was error to admit evidence showing what construction, based upon the common law, the supreme court of Tennessee had placed upon similar contracts.
Error from superior court, Bartow county; A. W. Fite, Judge.
Action by W. I. Alexander against R. M. Patillo. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
John W. Akin, for plaintiff in error.
J. B. Conyers and R. J. & J. McCamy, for defendant in error.
Judgment reversed.
COBB, J., absent for providential cause.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patillo v. Alexander
...30 S.E. 644105 Ga. 482PATILLO.v.ALEXANDER.Supreme Court of Georgia.April 12, 1898. Courts—Rules of Decision—Conflict of Laws. 1. When this case was here before (22 S. E. 646, 96 Ga. 60), it was ruled that, in the absence of evidence showing what was the law of Tennessee, the common law was ......