Crow v. Bowers

Supreme Court of Georgia

Crow v. Bowers

51 S.E.2d 855, 204 Ga. 786, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 505

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 16, 1949

Docket16521.

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 51 S.E.2d 855 (Crow v. Bowers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crow v. Bowers, 51 S.E.2d 855, 204 Ga. 786, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 505 (Ga. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. Where a petition seeks cancellation of a written instrument and alleges that the instrument sought to be canceled was “a release from all further claims," in construing the petition most strongly against the pleader, which must be done, the instrument will be construed as a full contract of release, and not merely a receipt.

2. Where it is sought to set aside a written instrument which is a full contract of release from all further claims, and not merely a receipt, parol evidence is not admissible to vary or alter its terms. Walters v. Odom, 53 Ga. 286, 289; Southern Bell Telephone &c. Co. v. Smith, 129 Ga. 558 (59 S. E. 215); Pennsylvania Casualty Co. v. Thompson, 130 Ga. 766 (61 S. E. 829); Jewell v. Norrell, 66 Ga. App. 11 (4) (16 S. E. 2d, 797).

3. Where a liquidated debt, upon which there is no dispute as to the amount due, is agreed to be settled for less than its face value and the settlement is consumated by the payment of the amount agreed upon and the execution and delivery of a writing stating that it is “a release from all further claims,” this is an accord and satisfaction and an extinguishment of all liability therefor by the debtor. Code, § 20-1204; Tarver v. *787 Rankin, 3 Ga. 210; Brown v. Ayer, 24 Ga. 288; Tyler Cotton Press Co. v. Chevalier, 56 Ga. 494 (5); Burgamy v. Holton, 165 Ga. 384 (3) (141 S. E. 42); Collier v. Mayflower Apartments, 196 Ga. 419 (2) (26 S. E. 2d, 731).

No. 16521. February 16, 1949.

4. A petition, seeking the cancellation of the instrument above described, in which there was no sufficient allegation of fraud, or other grounds authorizing a cancellation, was subject to the general demurrer interposed thereto, and the trial court erred in overruling the same.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. *788 M. G. Hicks, for plaintiff in error. James F. McNamara and Robert L. Royal, contra.

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

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. Where a petition seeks cancellation of a written instrument and alleges that the instrument sought to be canceled was “a release from all further claims," in construing the petition most strongly against the pleader, which must be done, the instrument will be construed as a full contract of release, and not merely a receipt.

2. Where it is sought to set aside a written instrument which is a full contract of release from all further claims, and not merely a receipt, parol evidence is not admissible to vary or alter its terms. Walters v. Odom, 53 Ga. 286, 289; Southern Bell Telephone &c. Co. v. Smith, 129 Ga. 558 (59 S. E. 215); Pennsylvania Casualty Co. v. Thompson, 130 Ga. 766 (61 S. E. 829); Jewell v. Norrell, 66 Ga. App. 11 (4) (16 S. E. 2d, 797).

3. Where a liquidated debt, upon which there is no dispute as to the amount due, is agreed to be settled for less than its face value and the settlement is consumated by the payment of the amount agreed upon and the execution and delivery of a writing stating that it is “a release from all further claims,” this is an accord and satisfaction and an extinguishment of all liability therefor by the debtor. Code, § 20-1204; Tarver v. *787 Rankin, 3 Ga. 210; Brown v. Ayer, 24 Ga. 288; Tyler Cotton Press Co. v. Chevalier, 56 Ga. 494 (5); Burgamy v. Holton, 165 Ga. 384 (3) (141 S. E. 42); Collier v. Mayflower Apartments, 196 Ga. 419 (2) (26 S. E. 2d, 731).

No. 16521. February 16, 1949.

4. A petition, seeking the cancellation of the instrument above described, in which there was no sufficient allegation of fraud, or other grounds authorizing a cancellation, was subject to the general demurrer interposed thereto, and the trial court erred in overruling the same.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. *788 M. G. Hicks, for plaintiff in error. James F. McNamara and Robert L. Royal, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 S.E.2d 855, 204 Ga. 786, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crow-v-bowers-ga-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack