Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Price

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Price

221 S.E.2d 71, 136 Ga. App. 302, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1334

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 23, 1975

Docket51253

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 221 S.E.2d 71 (Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Price) 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

Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Price, 221 S.E.2d 71, 136 Ga. App. 302, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1334 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

1. This is an action against the guarantor of a promissory note. Pursuant to Code § 103-205, the guarantor had notified the creditor in writing to proceed to collect the debt from the principals, setting forth their county of residence. The creditor failed to commence an [303]*303action against them within three months after the notification, resulting in the discharge of the guarantor. Code § 103-205. Accordingly the lower court did not err in granting his motion for summary judgment.

Argued October 6, 1975 Decided October 23, 1975. Ragsdale & Estes, Andrew W. Estes, for appellant. Gershon, Rudin, Pindar & Olim, Max Olim, for appellee.

2. Remaining contentions need not be passed upon.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

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

Webb, Judge.

1. This is an action against the guarantor of a promissory note. Pursuant to Code § 103-205, the guarantor had notified the creditor in writing to proceed to collect the debt from the principals, setting forth their county of residence. The creditor failed to commence an [303]*303action against them within three months after the notification, resulting in the discharge of the guarantor. Code § 103-205. Accordingly the lower court did not err in granting his motion for summary judgment.

Argued October 6, 1975 Decided October 23, 1975. Ragsdale & Estes, Andrew W. Estes, for appellant. Gershon, Rudin, Pindar & Olim, Max Olim, for appellee.

2. Remaining contentions need not be passed upon.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 S.E.2d 71, 136 Ga. App. 302, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-bank-trust-co-v-price-gactapp-1975.

Opinion

2. Remaining contentions need not be passed upon.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack