Adams v. Georgian Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Adams v. Georgian Co.

91 S.E. 1005, 19 Ga. App. 654, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 287

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 3, 1917

Docket8021

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 1005 (Adams v. Georgian Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Georgian Co., 91 S.E. 1005, 19 Ga. App. 654, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 287 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

“Against one wlio, before the goods were sold and delivered, guaranteed in writing payment therefor, on the faith of -which guaranty the sale was made, a recovery may be had upon a petition setting forth the account, a copy of the contract of guaranty, a refusal to pay the account by the principal debtor, notice by the creditor to the maker of the guaranty, before the goods were sold and delivered, that the same was accepted, and alleging that on the faith of said guaranty the goods represented by the account sued on were sold and delivered as requested in said guaranty. . . This would be true whether said writing, called a guaranty in the suit, was technically a guaranty, or was a contract of suretyship. In either case there was a valid consideration for said contract; and it would be wholly immaterial, in determining the liability of the party who made the written obligation referred to, whether he did so as guarantor or as surety. . . Where the terms of a written contract of guaranty, or suretyship, are ambiguous, they will be construed most strongly against the maker of the contract.” Small v. Claxton, 1 Ga. App. 83 (57 S. E. 977).

Under the foregoing rule of construction, the contract sued on in this case was one of continuing guaranty, and bound the maker thereof for all goods sold and furnished the principal under the terms of his contract with the plaintiff as' guaranteed by the defendant. See also.: Sims v. Clark, 91 Ga. 302 (18 S. E. 158); Manry v. Waxelbaum Co., 108 Ga. 14 (33 S. E. 701) ; Musgrove v. Luther Pub. Co., 5 Ga. App. 279, 284 (63 S. E. 52); Kalmon v. Scarboro, 11 Ga. App. 547 (75 S. E. 846). The trial judge did not err in overruling the demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition.

.Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jenkins, J.

“Against one wlio, before the goods were sold and delivered, guaranteed in writing payment therefor, on the faith of -which guaranty the sale was made, a recovery may be had upon a petition setting forth the account, a copy of the contract of guaranty, a refusal to pay the account by the principal debtor, notice by the creditor to the maker of the guaranty, before the goods were sold and delivered, that the same was accepted, and alleging that on the faith of said guaranty the goods represented by the account sued on were sold and delivered as requested in said guaranty. . . This would be true whether said writing, called a guaranty in the suit, was technically a guaranty, or was a contract of suretyship. In either case there was a valid consideration for said contract; and it would be wholly immaterial, in determining the liability of the party who made the written obligation referred to, whether he did so as guarantor or as surety. . . Where the terms of a written contract of guaranty, or suretyship, are ambiguous, they will be construed most strongly against the maker of the contract.” Small v. Claxton, 1 Ga. App. 83 (57 S. E. 977).

Under the foregoing rule of construction, the contract sued on in this case was one of continuing guaranty, and bound the maker thereof for all goods sold and furnished the principal under the terms of his contract with the plaintiff as' guaranteed by the defendant. See also.: Sims v. Clark, 91 Ga. 302 (18 S. E. 158); Manry v. Waxelbaum Co., 108 Ga. 14 (33 S. E. 701) ; Musgrove v. Luther Pub. Co., 5 Ga. App. 279, 284 (63 S. E. 52); Kalmon v. Scarboro, 11 Ga. App. 547 (75 S. E. 846). The trial judge did not err in overruling the demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition.

.Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 1005, 19 Ga. App. 654, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-georgian-co-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack