CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY v. Collins

Court of Appeals of Georgia

CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY v. Collins

172 S.E.2d 653, 121 Ga. App. 38, 7 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 520, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 1091

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1970

Docket44957

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 172 S.E.2d 653 (CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY v. Collins) 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

CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY v. Collins, 172 S.E.2d 653, 121 Ga. App. 38, 7 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 520, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 1091 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff in a suit to collect an account appeals from a summary judgment for one of the defendants who was alleged liable as a guarantor.

In August 1967, Mrs. Collins, a married woman, signed an agreement entitled “Guaranty.” While the document recited that her promise was “for value received,” she stated in an affidavit supporting her motion for summary judgment that she received nothing and no consideration, then or since. This evidence was not disputed. The agreement is therefore one- of suretyship, and, as it was made prior to the amendment of Code Ann. § 53-503, cannot be enforced against her. Wolkin v. National Acceptance Co., 222 Ga. 487 (150 SE2d 831).

Plaintiff contends the agreement must be a guaranty as the wording corresponds to that of Code Ann. § 109A-3—416 (1) which defines the contract of a guarantor. Plaintiff has overlooked the fact that Article 3 of Title 109A pertains only to commercial paper. The debt in question here is an open account, not one evidenced by a negotiable instrument and to which different policy considerations apply.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen and Evans, JJ., concur.

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

Hall, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff in a suit to collect an account appeals from a summary judgment for one of the defendants who was alleged liable as a guarantor.

In August 1967, Mrs. Collins, a married woman, signed an agreement entitled “Guaranty.” While the document recited that her promise was “for value received,” she stated in an affidavit supporting her motion for summary judgment that she received nothing and no consideration, then or since. This evidence was not disputed. The agreement is therefore one- of suretyship, and, as it was made prior to the amendment of Code Ann. § 53-503, cannot be enforced against her. Wolkin v. National Acceptance Co., 222 Ga. 487 (150 SE2d 831).

Plaintiff contends the agreement must be a guaranty as the wording corresponds to that of Code Ann. § 109A-3—416 (1) which defines the contract of a guarantor. Plaintiff has overlooked the fact that Article 3 of Title 109A pertains only to commercial paper. The debt in question here is an open account, not one evidenced by a negotiable instrument and to which different policy considerations apply.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen and Evans, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.E.2d 653, 121 Ga. App. 38, 7 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 520, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 1091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cities-service-oil-company-v-collins-gactapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack