Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Beazley v. Georgia Railroad Bank & Trust Co.

Beazley v. Georgia Railroad Bank & Trust Co.

241 S.E.2d 39, 144 Ga. App. 215, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2640
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 1, 1977
Docket54675
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 241 S.E.2d 39 (Beazley v. Georgia Railroad Bank & Trust 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
Beazley v. Georgia Railroad Bank & Trust Co., 241 S.E.2d 39, 144 Ga. App. 215, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2640 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

This is a suit to recover the amount due on a promissory note plus interest and attorney fees. *216 Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff bank and defendants appeal. Held:

Submitted October 4, 1977 Decided December 1, 1977. Bobby G. Beazley, for appellants. Nixon, Yow, Waller & Capers, O. Palmour Hollis, *217 Roy D. Tritt, for appellee.

*216 1. Plaintiffs request for admissions went unanswered and, accordingly, the following stand admitted: jurisdiction and venue; the genuineness of the note; the defendants’ signatures thereon; the receipt of the ten-day letter demanding payment; and, the failure to pay the note. These admissions provided a prima facie right to judgment for plaintiff. Freezamatic Corp. v. Brigadier Industries Corp., 125 Ga. App. 767 (189 SE2d 108).

2. Defendants raised the defenses of failure of consideration, discharge in bankruptcy and usury. An examination of them along with the undisputed related facts reveals the absence of any material issue of fact requiring trial.

a. Failure of Consideration. The note sued on was a renewal instrument. No consideration is necessary for an instrument given in payment of an antecedent obligation of any kind. General Tire &c. Co. v. Solomon, 124 Ga. App. 308 (183 SE2d 573).

b. Discharge in Bankruptcy. While the record indicates that the original note was discharged in bankruptcy, the note on which this suit is based was a reaffirmation of the earlier debt and was executed after the bankruptcy. A reaffirmation of a debt discharged in bankruptcy again makes the debt collectible. Monroe v. Martin, 137 Ga. 262 (73 SE 341).

c. Usury. The note was due 91 days after execution and the interest was calculated on a 360 -day year, causing a slight excess above the legal rate of 9% per annum to 9.13%. This was authorized and does not constitute usury under the holding in Patton v. Bank of LaFayette, 124 Ga. 965 (4) (53 SE 664).

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Alacrity Holdings 6, LLC v. Popli
N.D. Georgia, 2023
MOM CORP. v. Chattahoochee Bank
418 S.E.2d 74 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992)
United States v. Fidelity Capital Corporation, a Georgia Corporation, Commonwealth Mortgage Corporation of America, Intervenor-Appellee
933 F.2d 949 (Eleventh Circuit, 1991)
S & W Masonry Contractor, Inc. v. Jamison Co.
405 S.E.2d 519 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1991)
Panteleakis v. Kalams
659 F. Supp. 212 (D. Rhode Island, 1987)
Bradley v. Tattnall Bank
318 S.E.2d 657 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
THC Financial Corp. v. Managed Investment Corp.
643 P.2d 549 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1982)
Charter Medical Management Co. v. Ware Manor, Inc.
283 S.E.2d 330 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Voitier v. First National Bank of Commerce
514 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Louisiana, 1981)
Citizens Bank, Douglasville v. Wix
267 S.E.2d 856 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Rockdale Awning & Iron Co. v. Sheppard
244 S.E.2d 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
241 S.E.2d 39, 144 Ga. App. 215, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beazley-v-georgia-railroad-bank-trust-co-gactapp-1977.