General Supply Co. v. Toccoa Plumbing Co.

75 S.E. 135, 138 Ga. 219, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 264
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 17, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 75 S.E. 135 (General Supply Co. v. Toccoa Plumbing Co.) 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
General Supply Co. v. Toccoa Plumbing Co., 75 S.E. 135, 138 Ga. 219, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 264 (Ga. 1912).

Opinion

Beck, J.

1. On tlie trial of this ease, which was a suit upon an open account, the question for determination was, what amount, if any, was due the plaintiff after allowing the defendant. proper credits upon the account for certain articles of merchandise which had been returned, and for the amounts collected or which, in the exercise of due diligence, should have been collected, by the plaintiff upon an open account against a debtor of the defendant, which the latter had transferred to the plaintiff as collateral security. And it was error for the court, upon the trial of the ease, to permit one of the defendants, over objections duly made, to testify that “He [the manager of the plaintiff corporation] stated that he [the manager] had his accounts insured, and that this suit he had brought was just a matter of form, which he had to go through with before he could collect liis insurance; that his insurance covered a range of $1,000.00. I never heard of credit insurance before. There may be such a thing — it is new to me.” This evidence was entirely irrelevant and probably prejudicial to the plaintiff.

2. Where a debtor transfers to his creditors an open account which the former holds against one of his debtors, as collateral security for the payment of an open account, the transferee is chargeable, not with the amount due on the open account thus transferred, but with such an amount as he may have collected, in the absence of proof that he could have collected more by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Southeast Transport Corp. v. Hogan Livestock Co.
212 S.E.2d 638 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Schaefer v. Mayor &C. of Athens
170 S.E.2d 339 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Wallace v. Cates
170 S.E.2d 40 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Burel v. Dempsey
78 S.E.2d 58 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Wood v. Venable
64 S.E.2d 387 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Irwin v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee Inc.
50 S.E.2d 354 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Minnick v. Jackson
13 S.E.2d 891 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
A. G. Boone Co. v. Owens
187 S.E. 899 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Decatur Chevrolet Co. v. White
180 S.E. 377 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 S.E. 135, 138 Ga. 219, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-supply-co-v-toccoa-plumbing-co-ga-1912.