Case Name: James S. Hamilton, plaintiff in error, vs. B. A. Willingham, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1872-01
Citations: 45 Ga. 500
Docket Number: 
Parties: James S. Hamilton, plaintiff in error, vs. B. A. Willingham, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
James S. Hamilton, plaintiff in error, vs. B. A. Willingham, defendant in error.
When a note was given by principal and security, during the war, which, at the close of the war, was scaled to a gold standard, a new note given by principal alone for the amount thus sealed, and the new note accepted by the payee, in the discharge of the first note, this is a novation of the original contract, and the Relief Act of 1870 is inapplicable to it, and no payment of taxes was necessary.
Novation. Relief Act of 1870. Tax Affidavit. Before Judge Gibson. McDuffie Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1871.
Plaintiff in error brought complaint against defendant in error on a promissory note, dated January 30, 1866, due one day after date, for the sum of $494 32. It appeared from the evidence that the note sued on was given in renewal of a note made in 1863, with security, for about $3,000; that the original note was scaled down to a gold basis, according to a table of values; that the second note was signed by the principal alone. The Court charged the jury as follows: to-wit, A note given after the war closed for a note payable in Confederate money is a renewal of the old note; and unless there is an entire change of the principal parties, there is no novation, and the cases cited in 40 Georgia Reports, 195, 487, do not apply to this case.” The Court further charged the jury that an affidavit that all legal taxes had been paid was necessary to a recovery. The jury found in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff excepted to the charge of the Court.
William Reese; Charles H. Shcokley, for plaintiff in error.
E. H. Pottle, for defendant.

Opinion:
Montgomery, Judge.
The facts of this case show a clear novation under Revised Code, sections 2125 and 2827. The release of the surety by the principal, the forbearance to sue, and the acceptance of a gold note, sealed down, when taken together, was such a new consideration, moving from the payee of the note to the maker, as to bring the case fully within the provisions of the sections of the Code referred to, and to sustain the judgment as announced in the syllabus, that when a note was given by principal and security, during the war, which, at the close of the war, was scaled to a gold standard, a new note given by principal alone for the amount thus sealed, and the new note accepted by the payee, in the discharge of the first note, this is a novation of the original contract, and the Relief Act of 1870 is inapplicable to it, and no payment of taxes was necessary.
Judgment reversed.