Faust v. General Finance & Loan Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Faust v. General Finance & Loan Co.

84 S.E.2d 118, 90 Ga. App. 724, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 795

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 1, 1954

Docket35349

StatusPublished

This text of 84 S.E.2d 118 (Faust v. General Finance & Loan Co.) 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

Faust v. General Finance & Loan Co., 84 S.E.2d 118, 90 Ga. App. 724, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 795 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, P. J.

This case is somewhat analogous to Richardson v. C. I. T. Corp., 60 Ga. App. 78 (5 S. E. 2d 250). In Barrett v. Distributors Group, 85 Ga. App. 529 (69 S. E. 2d 810), the principles in the instant case, contested here by demurrers, are determined against the defendant. In the instant case the car was repossessed, sold, and all credits were properly given to the defendant on the note, and the suit is brought" for a deficiency judgment according to the terms of the contract. The many decisions and Code sections called to our attention by counsel for the defendant (cited together) are not in point and do not sustain his contention in this case. They are Montgomery v. Hunt, 93 Ga. 438 (2) (21 S. E. 59); Irvindale Farms v. W. O. Pierce Dairy, 78 Ga. App. 670 (1) (51 S. E. 2d 712); Davis v. Smith, 5 Ga. 274 (9) (47 Am. D. 279); Broxton v. Nelson, 103 Ga. 327, 330 (30 S. E. 38, 68 Am. St. R. 97); Carrig v. Gilbert-Varker Corp., 314 Mass. 351 (50 N. E. 2d 59); Bianchi Bros. v. Gendron, 292 Mass. 438 (198 N. E. 767); Brenau College v. Mincey, 68 Ga. App. 137 (22 S. E. 2d 322), and cases cited, p. 138; Tanner v. Mutual Benefit Bldg. Assn., 95 Ga. 528 (20 S. E. 499); Doebler v. Waters, 30 Ga. 344; Code § 20-304; Pepsi-Cola Co. v. Wright, 187 Ga. 723, 727 (2 S. E. 2d 73); Miazza v. Western Union Tel. Co., 50 Ga. App. 521 (178 S. E. 764); Florence Wagon Works v. Salmon, 8 Ga. App. 197 (68 S. E. 866); Lytle v. Scottish American Mtge. Co., 122 Ga. 458, 466 (50 S. E. 402); Snook v. Raglan, 89 Ga. 251 (2) (15 S. E. 364); [727]*727Glisson v. Heggie, 105 Ga. 30, 33 (31 S. E. 118); General Motors &c. Corp. v. Coggins, 178 Ga. 643 (173 S. E. 841); Blevins Aircraft Co. v. Gardner, 66 Ga. App. 843, 846 (19 S. E. 2d 350); Code § 14-502 (4); Barrett v. Distributors Group, 89 Ga. App. 458 (79 S. E. 2d 587).

The petition sets out a cause of action, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrers, both general and special.

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Gardner, P. J.

This case is somewhat analogous to Richardson v. C. I. T. Corp., 60 Ga. App. 78 (5 S. E. 2d 250). In Barrett v. Distributors Group, 85 Ga. App. 529 (69 S. E. 2d 810), the principles in the instant case, contested here by demurrers, are determined against the defendant. In the instant case the car was repossessed, sold, and all credits were properly given to the defendant on the note, and the suit is brought" for a deficiency judgment according to the terms of the contract. The many decisions and Code sections called to our attention by counsel for the defendant (cited together) are not in point and do not sustain his contention in this case. They are Montgomery v. Hunt, 93 Ga. 438 (2) (21 S. E. 59); Irvindale Farms v. W. O. Pierce Dairy, 78 Ga. App. 670 (1) (51 S. E. 2d 712); Davis v. Smith, 5 Ga. 274 (9) (47 Am. D. 279); Broxton v. Nelson, 103 Ga. 327, 330 (30 S. E. 38, 68 Am. St. R. 97); Carrig v. Gilbert-Varker Corp., 314 Mass. 351 (50 N. E. 2d 59); Bianchi Bros. v. Gendron, 292 Mass. 438 (198 N. E. 767); Brenau College v. Mincey, 68 Ga. App. 137 (22 S. E. 2d 322), and cases cited, p. 138; Tanner v. Mutual Benefit Bldg. Assn., 95 Ga. 528 (20 S. E. 499); Doebler v. Waters, 30 Ga. 344; Code § 20-304; Pepsi-Cola Co. v. Wright, 187 Ga. 723, 727 (2 S. E. 2d 73); Miazza v. Western Union Tel. Co., 50 Ga. App. 521 (178 S. E. 764); Florence Wagon Works v. Salmon, 8 Ga. App. 197 (68 S. E. 866); Lytle v. Scottish American Mtge. Co., 122 Ga. 458, 466 (50 S. E. 402); Snook v. Raglan, 89 Ga. 251 (2) (15 S. E. 364); [727]*727Glisson v. Heggie, 105 Ga. 30, 33 (31 S. E. 118); General Motors &c. Corp. v. Coggins, 178 Ga. 643 (173 S. E. 841); Blevins Aircraft Co. v. Gardner, 66 Ga. App. 843, 846 (19 S. E. 2d 350); Code § 14-502 (4); Barrett v. Distributors Group, 89 Ga. App. 458 (79 S. E. 2d 587).

The petition sets out a cause of action, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrers, both general and special.

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.E.2d 118, 90 Ga. App. 724, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faust-v-general-finance-loan-co-gactapp-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack