Behrens v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Behrens v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.

92 S.E.2d 37, 93 Ga. App. 406, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 754

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 20, 1956

Docket36057

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.E.2d 37 (Behrens v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.) 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

Behrens v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 92 S.E.2d 37, 93 Ga. App. 406, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 754 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, J.

Where, to an execution issued on the foreclosure, by the assignee, of a conditional-sales contract, covering the sale of an automobile, an affidavit is interposed, by the purchaser of the automobile, upon the ground that the execution is proceeding illegally because the contract, which is a negotiable instrument, had been materially altered since its execution and is void, and it is stipulated between the parties that the contract has been materially altered and if it is a negotiable instrument that it is void, and it appears from the terms of the contract that the parties contemplated its assignment to the designated assignee and payment of the monthly installments at one of the offices of the assignee, [407]*407but the contract contains no words of negotiability in that it is not made payable to order of anyone or to bearer, it is not a negotiable instrument. Peck v. Calhoun, 38 Ga. App. 764 (145 S. E. 528); Suddath v. Blanchard & Calhoun, 44 Ga. App. 149 (160 S. E. 686); and see particularly J. W. McNees Motor Co. v. Brumfield, 157 Miss. 132 (126 So. 898), where a contract of very similar import was held not to be negotiable. The trial court, consequently, did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the affidavit of illegality as stating no issuable defense and did not err in dismissing the affidavit of illegality.

Decided February 20, 1956. Casper Rich, for plaintiff in error. ■ Morton P. Levine, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Carlisle, J.

Where, to an execution issued on the foreclosure, by the assignee, of a conditional-sales contract, covering the sale of an automobile, an affidavit is interposed, by the purchaser of the automobile, upon the ground that the execution is proceeding illegally because the contract, which is a negotiable instrument, had been materially altered since its execution and is void, and it is stipulated between the parties that the contract has been materially altered and if it is a negotiable instrument that it is void, and it appears from the terms of the contract that the parties contemplated its assignment to the designated assignee and payment of the monthly installments at one of the offices of the assignee, [407]*407but the contract contains no words of negotiability in that it is not made payable to order of anyone or to bearer, it is not a negotiable instrument. Peck v. Calhoun, 38 Ga. App. 764 (145 S. E. 528); Suddath v. Blanchard & Calhoun, 44 Ga. App. 149 (160 S. E. 686); and see particularly J. W. McNees Motor Co. v. Brumfield, 157 Miss. 132 (126 So. 898), where a contract of very similar import was held not to be negotiable. The trial court, consequently, did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the affidavit of illegality as stating no issuable defense and did not err in dismissing the affidavit of illegality.

Decided February 20, 1956. Casper Rich, for plaintiff in error. ■ Morton P. Levine, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E.2d 37, 93 Ga. App. 406, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/behrens-v-universal-c-i-t-credit-corp-gactapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack