29 Ga. App. 5 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1922
The bank sued a corporation as maker and the plaintiff in error and others as indorsers upon a promissory note. The name of the maker was signed at-the foot of the instrument, and the names of the plaintiff in error and other defendants were signed upon the back. The note contained an assignment of certain stock certificates and notes receivable as collateral security, and the following provision: “ With the further right to said bank to call for additional security, and, on failure to respond, to declare this note due, payable, and collectible.” Before maturity the bank, in writing, called on the maker for additional security, to be delivered at a specified time, concluding as follows: “Failing to respond to this call, we will declare all of the above-mentioned notes due and collectible.” No such notice was sent to either of the indorsers. The maker advised the bank that it could not comply with the demand, whereupon the bank by letter notified the plaintiff in error and other defendants that in accordance with its right under the note it had accelerated the maturity and declared the note due and payable. The suit was thereupon filed. The plaintiff in error did not in any wise attack the validity of the stipulation contained in the note, but demurred generally to the petition, upon the ground that it nowhere appeared that any notice was given her calling for -the additional security, so that she might herself have furnished such new collateral, and that, in the absence of such a notice to her, the action of the bank in attempting to accelerate the maturity of the note amounted to a novation of the contract, increased her risk, and exposed her to greater liability, so as to release her from liability thereon. She excepts to the overruling of this general demurrer. Held: So far as disclosed by the petition, the indorsement by the plaintiff in error
■Judgment affirmed.