Camilla Loan Co. v. Sheffield

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Camilla Loan Co. v. Sheffield

158 S.E.2d 698, 116 Ga. App. 626, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 909

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 8, 1967

Docket43161

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.E.2d 698 (Camilla Loan Co. v. Sheffield) 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

Camilla Loan Co. v. Sheffield, 158 S.E.2d 698, 116 Ga. App. 626, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 909 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

Camilla Loan Company, Inc. brought suit on a promissory note, attaching a copy thereof together with an itemized charge and disbursement statement rendered in connection with the making of the loan and copy of a notice to the maker, in compliance with Code Ann. § 20-506, to bind him for the payment of attorney’s fees, and sought recovery of the balance alleged to be due on the note, together with attorney’s fees. The petition was amended to allege that plaintiff was duly licensed to do business under the Industrial Loan Act (Code Ann. § 25-301 et seq.) and that the loan represented by the note sued on was “made pursuant to and under the provisions of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act.” To the sustaining of a general demurrer to the petition plaintiff appeals. Held:

The question raised by the demurrer is controlled by Bayne v. Sun Finance Co. No. 1, 114 Ga. App. 27 (150 SE2d 311) and Clark v. Liberty Loan Corp., 116 Ga. App. 213 (156 SE2d 535). While a better allegation as to licensing would have unequivocally asserted that the loan was made at a time when the lender was duly licensed, the allegation that the lender was duly licensed and that the loan was made pursuant to and under the provisions of the Act can only mean that the loan was made while the lender was licensed and in compliance with all provisions of the Act. As against a general demurrer the allegations are good and it was error to sustain the demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur. James C. Brim, Jr., for appellant. Phillip Sheffield, for appellee.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

Camilla Loan Company, Inc. brought suit on a promissory note, attaching a copy thereof together with an itemized charge and disbursement statement rendered in connection with the making of the loan and copy of a notice to the maker, in compliance with Code Ann. § 20-506, to bind him for the payment of attorney’s fees, and sought recovery of the balance alleged to be due on the note, together with attorney’s fees. The petition was amended to allege that plaintiff was duly licensed to do business under the Industrial Loan Act (Code Ann. § 25-301 et seq.) and that the loan represented by the note sued on was “made pursuant to and under the provisions of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act.” To the sustaining of a general demurrer to the petition plaintiff appeals. Held:

The question raised by the demurrer is controlled by Bayne v. Sun Finance Co. No. 1, 114 Ga. App. 27 (150 SE2d 311) and Clark v. Liberty Loan Corp., 116 Ga. App. 213 (156 SE2d 535). While a better allegation as to licensing would have unequivocally asserted that the loan was made at a time when the lender was duly licensed, the allegation that the lender was duly licensed and that the loan was made pursuant to and under the provisions of the Act can only mean that the loan was made while the lender was licensed and in compliance with all provisions of the Act. As against a general demurrer the allegations are good and it was error to sustain the demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur. James C. Brim, Jr., for appellant. Phillip Sheffield, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E.2d 698, 116 Ga. App. 626, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camilla-loan-co-v-sheffield-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack