History
  • No items yet
midpage
Kent v. Hair
60 Ga. App. 652
Ga. Ct. App.
1939
Check Treatment
Felton, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Assuming that the Tennessee statute is open to the construction that the release of a cosurety or co-obligor does not release the other surety or obligor when the parties other than those not released stipulate that such other surety or obligor be not released, such a construction is contrary to the public policy of this State, as expressed by the Code, §§ 20-910, 103-201, and will not be enforced. Code, § 102-110; Shore Acres Properties Inc. v. Morgan, 44 Ga. App. 128 (160 S. E. 705); Sally v. Bank of Union, 150 Ga. 281 (3) (103 S. E. 400); Ulman, Magill & Jordan Woolen Co. v. Magill, 155 Ga. 555 (117 S. E. 657). It is unnecessary to pass upon the *655other assignments of error. The court did not err in dismissing the action on the motion in the nature of a general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., concurs. Sutton, J., concurs specially.

Case Details

Case Name: Kent v. Hair
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Sep 22, 1939
Citation: 60 Ga. App. 652
Docket Number: 27623
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.