Case ID: ga-app_49/html/0316-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Guerry, J. Guerry, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

23692.
    Thebaut v. McGill.
    Decided April 3, 1934.
    Rehearing denied May 18, June 12, July 20, 1934.
    
      William A. Thomas, for plaintiff.
   Guerry, J.

An action for fraud will not lie in favor of an accommodation indorser against the maker of a promissory note because of alleged false statements made by the maker to the payee of the note as to his financial responsibility, as an additional inducement to obtain credit. Such an action may be maintained by the payee where credit is extended by reason of false statements, but not by such accommodation indorser unless the alleged false statements are made to him and are relied upon by him in becoming such indorser. The petition in this ease having alleged that the plaintiff became such indorser because of sympathy for the maker, the court did not err in sustaining a general demurrer and dismissing the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

ON MOTION EOR REHEARING.

Guerry, J.

The trial court, on passing its order sustaining the demurrer, said: “All of the grounds thereof are hereby sustained, and the case is dismissed; request to amend being disallowed.” Plaintiff in error cites Donnelly Co. v. Milligan, 37 Ga. App. 530 (140 S. E. 918), as authority for his contention that the court erred in not allowing him to amend his petition. In that case it was held that the judgment would be affirmed if the judgment was Tight on any of the grounds stated by the general demurrer. If both special and general demurrers are sustained and the action dismissed, “but without giving plaintiff opportunity to amend, the judgment will be reversed if it appears that the general demurrer was improperly sustained.” This court in its original opinion held that the trial court properly sustained the general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition, to which ruling we now adhere on motion for rehearing. It follows that there was nothing to amend by, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow plaintiff to amend his petition. Rehearing denied.