Bowdon Oil & Fertilizer Co. v. Bank of Bowdon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bowdon Oil & Fertilizer Co. v. Bank of Bowdon

122 S.E. 723, 32 Ga. App. 206, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 338

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 24, 1924

Docket15157

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 122 S.E. 723 (Bowdon Oil & Fertilizer Co. v. Bank of Bowdon) 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

Bowdon Oil & Fertilizer Co. v. Bank of Bowdon, 122 S.E. 723, 32 Ga. App. 206, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 338 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

A default judgment was opened in this case, after which the defendant filed a plea setting up that, on account of certain payments made on the claim after its maturity, the plaintiff orally agreed to extend the due date for twelve months. The case was tried before the judge of the city court without a jury, and he found in favor of the plaintiff.

Payment of a part of a past-due indebtedness furnishes no consideration for a promise of forbearance. Crawford v. Gaulden, 33 Ga. 173 (5), 184; Tatum v. Morgan, 108 Ga. 336 (33 S. E. 940); [207]*207Holmes v. First Nat. Bank, 19 Ga. App. 810 (2) (92 S. E. 298). Moreover, according to the defendant’s own evidence, the indulgence was to be granted only on condition that he pay as much as $5,000, whereas the entire payment he attempted to prove amounted to much less. The verdict in the amount rendered was authorized, if not demanded, by the evidence, since according to the plaintiff’s evidence the bank stock was turned over, not as. a payment, but to be sold by the plaintiff and the proceeds applied on the debt, if it should effect a sale thereof at a price not less than the book value of the stock. The bank’s receipt for the stock, which was introduced in evidence, plainly bears out its contention.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

A default judgment was opened in this case, after which the defendant filed a plea setting up that, on account of certain payments made on the claim after its maturity, the plaintiff orally agreed to extend the due date for twelve months. The case was tried before the judge of the city court without a jury, and he found in favor of the plaintiff.

Payment of a part of a past-due indebtedness furnishes no consideration for a promise of forbearance. Crawford v. Gaulden, 33 Ga. 173 (5), 184; Tatum v. Morgan, 108 Ga. 336 (33 S. E. 940); [207]*207Holmes v. First Nat. Bank, 19 Ga. App. 810 (2) (92 S. E. 298). Moreover, according to the defendant’s own evidence, the indulgence was to be granted only on condition that he pay as much as $5,000, whereas the entire payment he attempted to prove amounted to much less. The verdict in the amount rendered was authorized, if not demanded, by the evidence, since according to the plaintiff’s evidence the bank stock was turned over, not as. a payment, but to be sold by the plaintiff and the proceeds applied on the debt, if it should effect a sale thereof at a price not less than the book value of the stock. The bank’s receipt for the stock, which was introduced in evidence, plainly bears out its contention.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 723, 32 Ga. App. 206, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowdon-oil-fertilizer-co-v-bank-of-bowdon-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack