From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singleton v. Rary

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Oct 6, 1967
157 S.E.2d 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)

Opinion

43098, 43099.

ARGUED OCTOBER 2, 1967.

DECIDED OCTOBER 6, 1967.

Action on note. DeKalb Civil and Criminal Court. Before Judge Mitchell.

Wall, Armstrong Fuller, Hilton M. Fuller, Jr., for appellant.

Larry W. Thomason, for appellee.


1. It is error to sustain a general demurrer to a petition seeking recovery on a promissory note in which it is alleged that the defendant is indebted to plaintiff thereunder in a specific sum, besides interest and attorney's fees, a photostatic copy of the note and of a notice of intent to sue thereon and hold the maker for the attorney's fees as therein provided being attached as exhibits.

Defendant's contention that the exhibits "cannot be read with clarity," and hence that since the validity of the suit is dependent thereon a general demurrer was properly sustained, is without merit. The exhibits attached, as they appear in the record transmitted to this court, are clearly legible. If they were not legible it would be a matter reached by special rather than general demurrer.

2. There was no error in sustaining a special demurrer on the ground of irrelevancy and striking a copy of a letter addressed to the defendant, attached as Exhibit C, in which the notes were described and the defendant was requested to make payment.

3. The defendant's answer simply denied all paragraphs of the petition and plaintiff moved to strike or dismiss the answer since it amounted to no more than a plea of the general issue against an unconditional contract in writing. Other than the denial of the giving of the notice to bind the defendant for the payment of attorney's fees the answer was a plea of the general issue, setting up no legal defense, and could not be amended to set up a defense to the unconditional part of the contract. Except as to the denial of the notice for attorney's fees, the answer should have been stricken. Palmer Tire Co. v. L. H. Acceptance Corp., 114 Ga. App. 314 ( 151 S.E.2d 178).

Judgment reversed. Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.

ARGUED OCTOBER 2, 1967 — DECIDED OCTOBER 6, 1967.


Summaries of

Singleton v. Rary

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Oct 6, 1967
157 S.E.2d 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
Case details for

Singleton v. Rary

Case Details

Full title:SINGLETON, by Next Friend v. RARY (two cases)

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Oct 6, 1967

Citations

157 S.E.2d 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
157 S.E.2d 645

Citing Cases

Singleton v. Rary

This is the second appearance of the cases in this court. See Singleton v. Rary, 116 Ga. App. 476 (3) ( 157…

Morgan v. White

The contention was made that the answer constituted a mere general denial which was not sufficient as against…