Farmers Mutual Exchange of Wrens, Inc. v. Rabun

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Farmers Mutual Exchange of Wrens, Inc. v. Rabun

245 S.E.2d 52, 145 Ga. App. 798, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2138

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 28, 1978

Docket55324

StatusPublished

This text of 245 S.E.2d 52 (Farmers Mutual Exchange of Wrens, Inc. v. Rabun) 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

Farmers Mutual Exchange of Wrens, Inc. v. Rabun, 245 S.E.2d 52, 145 Ga. App. 798, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2138 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

The appellant secured a judgment against the appellee for the amount due on a "revolving account” as defined by Code Ann. § 96-902(8). A time price differential of one-and-one-half percent had been charged on the monthly balance in the account pursuant to an "Open Account Payment Agreement” made in accordance with Code Ann. § 96-904 (b). When the jury returned its verdict in favor of the appellant, it specified that interest could continue to be payable on the amount of the verdict at the rate of one-and-one-half percent per month. The trial court, however, rejected a proposed judgment submitted by the appellant to that effect and instead ordered that interest on the judgment would be payable at the rate of 7 percent per annum. See Code § 57-101.

The appellant contends that it was entitled to the higher interest rate under the authority of Daniel v. Gibson, 72 Ga. 367 (1) (1884), which provides: "Where a contract specifies a rate of interest, which is not beyond the percent which the parties may legally contract for, if a [799]*799judgment is rendered on such contract, it bears interest at the contract rate, and not at the rate which all contracts carry if no rate be stipulated therein.” (Emphasis supplied.) We do not agree that this principle controls the situation at bar. Even assuming arguendo that the term "time price differential” as used in the payment . agreement is synonymous with the term "interest,” the fact remains that this is a suit on an account rather than a suit on a contract. Furthermore, the interest rate sought by the appellant, which is the equivalent of 18 percent per annum, is usurious. See Code Ann. § 57-101, supra. Although the general usury statutes are inapplicable to revolving accounts (see Code Ann. § 96-904 (b)), they do apply to the interest rates chargeable on judgments. See Code § 57-108.

Submitted February 2, 1978 Decided April 28, 1978. Pilcher & Murray, Wallace H. Pilcher, William Anthony Murray, for appellant. Harris, McCracken, Pickett & Jackson, J. Roy McCracken, for appellee.

For these reasons, the trial court was correct in awarding interest at the legal rate.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

The appellant secured a judgment against the appellee for the amount due on a "revolving account” as defined by Code Ann. § 96-902(8). A time price differential of one-and-one-half percent had been charged on the monthly balance in the account pursuant to an "Open Account Payment Agreement” made in accordance with Code Ann. § 96-904 (b). When the jury returned its verdict in favor of the appellant, it specified that interest could continue to be payable on the amount of the verdict at the rate of one-and-one-half percent per month. The trial court, however, rejected a proposed judgment submitted by the appellant to that effect and instead ordered that interest on the judgment would be payable at the rate of 7 percent per annum. See Code § 57-101.

The appellant contends that it was entitled to the higher interest rate under the authority of Daniel v. Gibson, 72 Ga. 367 (1) (1884), which provides: "Where a contract specifies a rate of interest, which is not beyond the percent which the parties may legally contract for, if a [799]*799judgment is rendered on such contract, it bears interest at the contract rate, and not at the rate which all contracts carry if no rate be stipulated therein.” (Emphasis supplied.) We do not agree that this principle controls the situation at bar. Even assuming arguendo that the term "time price differential” as used in the payment . agreement is synonymous with the term "interest,” the fact remains that this is a suit on an account rather than a suit on a contract. Furthermore, the interest rate sought by the appellant, which is the equivalent of 18 percent per annum, is usurious. See Code Ann. § 57-101, supra. Although the general usury statutes are inapplicable to revolving accounts (see Code Ann. § 96-904 (b)), they do apply to the interest rates chargeable on judgments. See Code § 57-108.

Submitted February 2, 1978 Decided April 28, 1978. Pilcher & Murray, Wallace H. Pilcher, William Anthony Murray, for appellant. Harris, McCracken, Pickett & Jackson, J. Roy McCracken, for appellee.

For these reasons, the trial court was correct in awarding interest at the legal rate.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.E.2d 52, 145 Ga. App. 798, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-mutual-exchange-of-wrens-inc-v-rabun-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack