Jackson v. College Park Supply Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jackson v. College Park Supply Co.

230 S.E.2d 329, 140 Ga. App. 134, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1372

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 22, 1976

Docket52869

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 S.E.2d 329 (Jackson v. College Park Supply 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

Jackson v. College Park Supply Co., 230 S.E.2d 329, 140 Ga. App. 134, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1372 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Presiding Judge.

1. Construction of the contract as one of suretyship was correct. Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. Young, 66 Ga. App. 33 (16 SE2d 909); Fagelson v. Pfister Aluminum Corp., 109 Ga. App. 663 (137 SE2d 313).

2. Nor did the court err in finding there to be no discharge of the appellant on his contract of suretyship. The notes accepted by the appellee as security for the indebtedness were signed by the appellant. Woolfolk v. Mathews, 54 Ga. App. 694 (188 SE 729); it was therefore [135]*135not "without the consent of the surety” as contemplated by Code § 103-202. Nor does the fact that the notes were accepted as additional security discharge the appellant. W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Overstreet, 71 Ga. App. 873, 882 (32 SE2d 574).

3. The fact that some of the property covered by the security deeds to the appellee were subject to prior outstanding security obligations and were released when the security was exhausted does not serve to discharge the appellant. Jones v. Hawkins, 60 Ga. 52, 55.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Deen, Presiding Judge.

1. Construction of the contract as one of suretyship was correct. Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. Young, 66 Ga. App. 33 (16 SE2d 909); Fagelson v. Pfister Aluminum Corp., 109 Ga. App. 663 (137 SE2d 313).

2. Nor did the court err in finding there to be no discharge of the appellant on his contract of suretyship. The notes accepted by the appellee as security for the indebtedness were signed by the appellant. Woolfolk v. Mathews, 54 Ga. App. 694 (188 SE 729); it was therefore [135]*135not "without the consent of the surety” as contemplated by Code § 103-202. Nor does the fact that the notes were accepted as additional security discharge the appellant. W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Overstreet, 71 Ga. App. 873, 882 (32 SE2d 574).

3. The fact that some of the property covered by the security deeds to the appellee were subject to prior outstanding security obligations and were released when the security was exhausted does not serve to discharge the appellant. Jones v. Hawkins, 60 Ga. 52, 55.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 S.E.2d 329, 140 Ga. App. 134, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-college-park-supply-co-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack