Keheley v. Benham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Keheley v. Benham

257 S.E.2d 29, 150 Ga. App. 153, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2165

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 23, 1979

Docket57517

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 257 S.E.2d 29 (Keheley v. Benham) 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

Keheley v. Benham, 257 S.E.2d 29, 150 Ga. App. 153, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2165 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Acting Presiding Judge.

The plaintiff sued to collect on a promissory note in the face amount of $10,500, executed by the defendant on July 1, 1961. The defendant answered, alleging that the note had been paid by the delivery of services and also counterclaimed for the value of those services. More particularly, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had contributed $10,500 toward the cost of constructing the defendant’s home, that in return for this money rooms were added to the house for the plaintiffs use, that the plaintiff used this area as her living quarters for many years, and that the area was still available to her and was still occupied by her furniture and other possessions. Held:

"A note in which it is stipulated that a certain sum will be paid means that this sum will be paid in money, and the maker will not be heard to plead or prove that there was a parol agreement by which the note was to be satisfied with something else than money.” Cole v. Bank of Bowersville, 31 Ga. App. 435 (1) (120 SE 790) (1923). See also Whiteside v. Douglas County Bank, 145 Ga. App. 775 (2) (245 SE2d 2) (1978). It was not error to grant summary judgment to the plaintiff for the amount due on the note. Since summary judgment was not prayed for or granted on the counterclaim, it remains pending in the lower court.

Judgment affirmed.

Underwood and Carley, JJ., concur. James L. Flemister, for appellee.

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

Banke, Acting Presiding Judge.

The plaintiff sued to collect on a promissory note in the face amount of $10,500, executed by the defendant on July 1, 1961. The defendant answered, alleging that the note had been paid by the delivery of services and also counterclaimed for the value of those services. More particularly, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had contributed $10,500 toward the cost of constructing the defendant’s home, that in return for this money rooms were added to the house for the plaintiffs use, that the plaintiff used this area as her living quarters for many years, and that the area was still available to her and was still occupied by her furniture and other possessions. Held:

"A note in which it is stipulated that a certain sum will be paid means that this sum will be paid in money, and the maker will not be heard to plead or prove that there was a parol agreement by which the note was to be satisfied with something else than money.” Cole v. Bank of Bowersville, 31 Ga. App. 435 (1) (120 SE 790) (1923). See also Whiteside v. Douglas County Bank, 145 Ga. App. 775 (2) (245 SE2d 2) (1978). It was not error to grant summary judgment to the plaintiff for the amount due on the note. Since summary judgment was not prayed for or granted on the counterclaim, it remains pending in the lower court.

Judgment affirmed.

Underwood and Carley, JJ., concur. James L. Flemister, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 S.E.2d 29, 150 Ga. App. 153, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keheley-v-benham-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack