Bledsoe v. Ivey

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bledsoe v. Ivey

107 S.E. 615, 27 Ga. App. 235, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 793

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 17, 1921

Docket11991

StatusPublished

This text of 107 S.E. 615 (Bledsoe v. Ivey) 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

Bledsoe v. Ivey, 107 S.E. 615, 27 Ga. App. 235, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. A failure by a creditor to place on record within the time required by law a promissory note payable to him for the purchase-money of property sold and delivered, which note contains a retention of title to the property by the creditor as security for the debt, is such an act as will discharge a surety on the note. Failure to record the instrument within the time required by law is such an act of omission as may destroy the creditor’s lien upon the property and thereby increase the surety’s risk. Civil Code (1910), § 3544; Toomer v. Dickerson, 37 Ga. 428; Cloud v. Scarborough, 3 Ga. App. 7 (59 S. E. 202), and eases cited.

2. There being evidence to establish the above facts, and also to authorize the inference that the defendant was a surety upon the note sued on, it was not error to overrule the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. A failure by a creditor to place on record within the time required by law a promissory note payable to him for the purchase-money of property sold and delivered, which note contains a retention of title to the property by the creditor as security for the debt, is such an act as will discharge a surety on the note. Failure to record the instrument within the time required by law is such an act of omission as may destroy the creditor’s lien upon the property and thereby increase the surety’s risk. Civil Code (1910), § 3544; Toomer v. Dickerson, 37 Ga. 428; Cloud v. Scarborough, 3 Ga. App. 7 (59 S. E. 202), and eases cited.

2. There being evidence to establish the above facts, and also to authorize the inference that the defendant was a surety upon the note sued on, it was not error to overrule the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 615, 27 Ga. App. 235, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bledsoe-v-ivey-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack