25 Ga. App. 358 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1920
The plaintiff sued upon four promissory notes, seeking to recover principal, interest, and attorney’s fees. The defendant filed an answer, denying any indebtedness upon the notes sued upon, but alleging that if it were indebted to the plaintiff in any amount it was upon an open account. The answer admitted that the notes sued upon had been given in satisfaction of the open account, but the defendant alleged that a prior suit had been filed upon the open account, and that, the plaintiff then being in possession of the notes, the defendant pleaded to the first suit that the notes had been given for the open account; and that thereafter the plaintiff had returned to the defendant and surrendered to it the notes, and later had dismissed or withdrawn the suit upon the open account. Upon the trial of the case the uncontradicted
1. The court did not err in admitting over objection of defendant’s counsel the original four notes sued upon.
2. The court did not err in admitting the evidence of the witness Eogers complained of in the 2d ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.
3. “An unauthorized surrender of a note to its maker does not relieve him from liability to pay it.” Crawford v. Moore, 28 Fed. 824 (6).
Judgment affirmed.