Austin v. Citizens DeKalb Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Austin v. Citizens DeKalb Bank

239 S.E.2d 557, 143 Ga. App. 680, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2459

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 28, 1977

Docket54529

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 S.E.2d 557 (Austin v. Citizens DeKalb Bank) 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

Austin v. Citizens DeKalb Bank, 239 S.E.2d 557, 143 Ga. App. 680, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2459 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

This is a suit to recover the unpaid balance on two promissory notes. Plaintiff bank was the payee. A third party was the maker. Defendant unconditionally guaranteed payment of both notes. A jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in a stated amount plus interest and attorney fees and a judgment was entered. Held:

The defendant contends that the evidence demands the conclusion that he was discharged because of the plaintiff’s impairment of the collateral given for the two notes; that defendant had the right to demand that the plaintiff accelerate payment of the notes which it did not do; and that the plaintiff was negligent in the circumstances which increased his risk. We have examined these contentions and the record and they are meritless. Defendant unconditionally guaranteed payment of the notes. It was shown that they were not fully paid when due. The evidence authorized the verdict and judgment for plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

This is a suit to recover the unpaid balance on two promissory notes. Plaintiff bank was the payee. A third party was the maker. Defendant unconditionally guaranteed payment of both notes. A jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in a stated amount plus interest and attorney fees and a judgment was entered. Held:

The defendant contends that the evidence demands the conclusion that he was discharged because of the plaintiff’s impairment of the collateral given for the two notes; that defendant had the right to demand that the plaintiff accelerate payment of the notes which it did not do; and that the plaintiff was negligent in the circumstances which increased his risk. We have examined these contentions and the record and they are meritless. Defendant unconditionally guaranteed payment of the notes. It was shown that they were not fully paid when due. The evidence authorized the verdict and judgment for plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 S.E.2d 557, 143 Ga. App. 680, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-citizens-dekalb-bank-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack