Fouche v. Cherokee National Bank

Fouche v. Cherokee Nat'l Bank, 90 S.E. 102 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916)

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided: September 21, 1916
Docket: No. 7317
Judges: Hodges
Citations: 90 S.E. 10218 Ga. App. 5691916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1115

Cited by 7

Headnotes

1. A default judgment may be signed by the judge at his office in the ■ court-house during a regular term of the court. 2. A general guarantor for value, guaranteeing the payee of a promissory note against loss thereon, is not discharged by the failure of the creditor to institute legal proceedings against the maker, although the maker, becomes insolvent. It is not necessary to sue the maker in order to maintain a suit against a general guarantor guaranteeing against loss. Nance v. Winship Machine Co., 94 Ga. 649 (21 S. E. 901). See also Kalmon v. Scarboro, 11 Ga. A.pp. 547 (75 S. E. 846 ). 3. In a suit of this character it is not necessary, in order to maintain an action against one generally guaranteeing against loss, to make the original promisors parties to the action. Nor is the solvency or insolvency of the original undertakers material. Penn Tobacco Co. v. Leman, 109 Ga. 428 (34 S. E. 679).

Summary

Action on guaranty; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Nunnally. February 15, 1916.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hodges

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hodges, , J.

The bank sued Fouché upon the following guarantee: “For value received I hereby guarantee the Cherokee National Bank against loss upon a certain note for $1,000.00, dated September 30th, 1913, due four months after date, signed John B. Jones, payable to himself, and endorsed by John B. Jones and Mrs. I. B. Lancaster. This October 1st, 1913. [Signed] Sproull Fouché.” It is not necessary to elaborate the rulings stated in the headnotes, as the principles controlling the case are elementary. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Hartsfield Co. v. Shoaf191 S.E. 693 (Ga. 1937)
Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. Young16 S.E.2d 909 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)
McMullan v. Community Acceptance Corp.51 S.E.2d 575 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949)
Rawleigh Co. v. Etheridge140 S.E. 913 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)
Texaco, Inc. v. Hurt164 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
Fields v. Shores-Mueller Co.103 S.E. 473 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920)

Most recent

Texaco, Inc. v. Hurt164 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
McMullan v. Community Acceptance Corp.51 S.E.2d 575 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949)
Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. Young16 S.E.2d 909 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)
Hartsfield Co. v. Shoaf191 S.E. 693 (Ga. 1937)
Niagara Sprayer & Chemical Co. v. Cotton States Fertilizer Co.173 S.E. 460 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
Rawleigh Co. v. Etheridge140 S.E. 913 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list