O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-103 (2019)

Form of complaint on a promissory note

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

IN THE

STATE OF GEORGIA A.B.,

) Plaintiff

) )

v. C.D., Defendant

) )

Civil action File no.

) )

(Clerk will insert number.)

COMPLAINT The defendant C.D., herein named, is a resident of (street), (city), County, Georgia, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this court. 1. Defendant on or about June 1, 1965, executed and delivered to plaintiff a promissory note in the following words and figures: (here set out the note verbatim); (a copy of which is hereto annexed as Exhibit A); whereby defendant promised to pay to plaintiff or order on June 1, 1966, the sum of $10,000.00 with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. 2. Defendant owes to plaintiff the amount of said note and interest. Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the sum of $10,000.00, interest, costs, and attorney fees (where applicable).

Attorney for plaintiff Address

History

(Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, § 103; Ga. L. 1980, p. 649, § 1.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Ghitter v. Edge, 118 Ga. App. 750, 165 S.E.2d 598 (1968); A & D Barrel & Drum Co. v. Fuqua, 132 Ga. App. 827,

209 S.E.2d 272 (1974); Southeastern Plumbing Supply Co. v. Lee, 133 Ga. App. 470, 211 S.E.2d 418 (1974).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 61A Am. Jur. 2d, Pleading, § 31 et seq.

C.J.S. - 71 C.J.S., Pleading, § 43 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1999–1999 · leading case: Davis v. Butler, 522 S.E.2d 548 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Davis v. Butler, 522 S.E.2d 548 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Any pro se litigants are on notice of their status in the case so that, when pro se appears where the name of counsel normally appears, they must take the additional step of examining the style of the case to determine if pro se refers to them, which should have been done in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.