Bedingfield v. Lamb

Georgia Court of Appeals
Bedingfield v. Lamb, 19 Ga. App. 486 (1917)
91 S.E. 793; 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 182
Luke

Bedingfield v. Lamb

Opinion of the Court

Luke, J.

A promise to answer for the debt of another must be in writing, in order to bind the promisor. Civil Code (1910), § 3222. This case falls squarely within the rule laid down in Harris v. Paulk, 10 Ga. App. 334 (73 S. E. 430), and Foote v. Reece, 17 Ga. App. 799 (88 S. E. 689), and is distinguished by the facts from the eases of Evans v. Griffin, 1 Ga. App. 327 (57 S. E. 921), and Palmetto Manufacturing Co. v. Parker, 123 Ga. 798 (51 S. E. 714), and Ferst v. Bank of Waycross, 111 Ga. 229 (36 S. E. 773). Under the facts the court did not err in sustaining the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and George, J., concur.

Reference

Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published