Case ID: ga-app_119/html/0324-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Quillian, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

44181.
    SIMPSON v. WAGES et al.
    Argued January 7, 19691 —
    Decided February 13, 1969—
    Rehearing denied March 7, 1969 —
    
      Powell, Goldstein, Fraser & Murphy, Wayne Shortridge, Ronald Stallings, for appellant.
    
      Carley &, Ramsay, George H. Carley, for appellees.
   Quillian, Judge.

Code Ann. § 109A-3 — 118 (e) (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 245) provides: “Unless the instrument otherwise specifies two or more persons who sign as maker, acceptor or drawer or indorser and as a part of the same transaction are jointly and severally liable even though the instrument contains such words as T promise to pay.’ ” Where as in the case sub judice there is a negotiable instrument containing the words “we promise to pay” and signed by three parties, absent any specific provision to the contrary, the three co-makers are jointly and severally liable under the provisions of this Code section. Ghitter v. Edge, 118 Ga. App. 750 (2) (165 SE2d 598). See Official Comment, 2 U. L. A. — U. C. C., § 3-118 (e), p. 54; 4 Encyc. of Ga. Law, Commercial Code § 146, pp. 251, 252. Hence, an action against two of the three co-makers on the note was sustainable even though the other co-maker was dismissed as a party defendant. The trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the two defendants and overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.