23 Ga. App. 569 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1919
1. It is essential to the validity of every contract that there be a consideration; and the fact that a promissory note is under seal ■ will not defeat the right of the maker or his administrator to plead want of consideration. A contract nudum pactum is no more .enforceable when under seal than when not under seal, as against a timely defense and proof thereof. Seawright v. Dickson, 16 Ga. App. 436, 440 et seq. (85 S. E. 625); Krueger v. Simmons, 22 Ga. App. 210 (95 S. E. 718), and eit.
(a) The court did not err in refusing to charge the jury that “a promissory note under seal may be the subject of a valid gift, as between
2. The court did not err in overruling the objection to the admissibility of evidence as set out in ground 1 of the motion for new trial.
3. The evidence supported the verdict, which has the approval of the learned trial judge; and for no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.