DocketNumber： 9813, 9814
Citation Numbers： 23 Ga. App. 136, 98 S.E. 239, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 90
Judges： Bloodworth
Filed Date： 12/14/1918
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
The following cases support the general proposition that “One who executes and delivers a promissory note without reading or knowing its contents can not avoid liability thereon because he acted ignorantly, without showing some justification for his ignorance, either by reason of his inability to read' or by some misleading device or contrivance amounting to fraud on the part of the person with whom he was dealing,” Barnes v. Slaton Drug Co., 21 Ga. App. 580 (94 S. E. 896); Tinsley v. Gullett Gin Co., 21 Ga. App. 512 (2), 516 (94 S. E. 892) ; Levy v. Miles F. Bixler Co., 20 Ga. App. 766 (93 S. E. 233); Sloan v. Farmers &. Merchants Bank, 20 Ga. App. 123 (a), 125 (92 S. E. 893) ; Parker v. Parish, 18 Ga. App. 258 (2) (89 S. E. 381) ; Bostwick v. Duncan, 60 Ga. 384; Radcliffe v. Biles, 94 Ga. 480 (20 S. E. 359); Jossey v. Ga. So. &c. Ry. Co., 109 Ga. 439, 446 (34 S. E. 664); Walton Guano Co. v. Copeland, 112 Ga. 319 (1), 320 (37 S. E. 411, 52 L. R. A. 268) ; Georgia Medicine Co. v. Hyman, 117 Ga. 851 (45 S. E. 238) ; Harrison v. Wilson Lumber Co., 119 Ga. 6 (2), 8 (45 S. E. 730) ; Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 122 Ga. 802 (50 S. E. 915) ; Rounsaville v. Leonard Mfg. Co., 127 Ga. 735 (2) (56 S. E. 1030) ; Baker v. Patton, 144 Ga. 502 (87 S. E. 659). Applying the rulings in these cases to the facts of the instant case, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff:
Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed; cross bill dismissed.