Thompson v. Wilkinson
| Decision Date | 07 June 1911 |
| Docket Number | 3,065. |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. WILKINSON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where suit is brought upon a promissory note, and a plea of non est factum is filed, it is not proper to admit the note in evidence until prima facie proof of execution has been made. If there be a subscribing witness, he should be called or accounted for. If the inaccessibility of the subscribing witness is shown, or if, when he is called, he fails to remember the signing of the note, or if he testifies that the alleged maker did not execute it, the party offering the note may then proceed to other proof to show that it was in fact executed. In the present instance the magistrate erred in admitting the note without proof of execution; but as the subscribing witness was subsequently called and testified as to the execution of the note, and as there was further proof as to its execution, this error was rendered harmless.
A contract relating to a person's ordinary business is void, if executed on Sunday.
A married woman cannot make any contract of guaranty or suretyship, or make a valid promise to pay her husband's debt. The form in which it is attempted to make her liable for the debt is immaterial.
It is competent to show that a person who signed a paper apparently as a maker, signed only as a witness.
Error from Superior Court, Dade County; A. W. Fite, Judge.
Action by W. E. Wilkinson against Nancy Thompson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Foust Payne & Tatum, for plaintiff in error.
W. U Jacoway, for defendant in error.
Wilkinson brought suit upon a promissory note signed as follows:
Mrs Thompson filed a plea of non est factum, and afterward by amendment further pleaded that, though her name appeared on the note as a maker, she could neither read nor write, and merely signed as a witness; also that the note was executed on Sunday; also that the note was executed for the pre-existing debt of her husband. The note was tendered in evidence without proof of execution. The defendant objected. The objection was overruled. Primarily speaking, this was error (as the plea of non est factum put the plaintiff to proof of the execution of the note); but it was rendered harmless by reason of the fact that the subscribing witness was called and testified that Mrs. Thompson signed as a witness and not as a maker; and Price was called as a witness and testified that Mrs. Thompson signed as a maker and not as a witness, and that he himself signed as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial