Loudermilk v. Associates Discount Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Loudermilk v. Associates Discount Corp.

130 S.E.2d 831, 107 Ga. App. 574, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 911

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 3, 1963

Docket40022

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 S.E.2d 831 (Loudermilk v. Associates Discount Corp.) 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

Loudermilk v. Associates Discount Corp., 130 S.E.2d 831, 107 Ga. App. 574, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 911 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. A prima facie defense to a suit against a bankrupt on a debt existing at the time of filing the petition in bankruptcy is made out by the introduction in evidence of the order of discharge in bankruptcy, the burden being then cast upon the plaintiff to show, in such a case as this, that the debt was not scheduled, and that if it was not, he had no notice of the bankruptcy proceedings. Bell v. Georgia Chemical Works, 33 Ga. App. 286 (125 SE 871); Coppedge v. Aycock Mortgage &c. Corp., 51 Ga. App. 248 (179 SE 909); Coppedge v. Aycock Mortgage Acc. Corp., 54 Ga. App. 437 (188 SE 311); Tyler v. Jones County Bank, 78 Ga. App. 741 (1) (52 SE2d 547); Beck & Gregg Hdw. Co. v. Crum, 127 Ga. 94 (56 SE 242); Huff v. Porter, 89 Ga. App. 345 (79 SE2d 334).

2. Under the foregoing authorities it was error for the court to overrule the certiorari from the Civil Court of Fulton County for the reason that the debtor made out a prima facie defense against the plaintiff’s action and there was no evidence introduced by the plaintiff or defendant to the effect that the debt was not scheduled and that if it was not the plaintiff had no knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Judgment reversed.

Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur. Oze R. Horton, for plaintiff in error. M. Alvin Levy, contra.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. A prima facie defense to a suit against a bankrupt on a debt existing at the time of filing the petition in bankruptcy is made out by the introduction in evidence of the order of discharge in bankruptcy, the burden being then cast upon the plaintiff to show, in such a case as this, that the debt was not scheduled, and that if it was not, he had no notice of the bankruptcy proceedings. Bell v. Georgia Chemical Works, 33 Ga. App. 286 (125 SE 871); Coppedge v. Aycock Mortgage &c. Corp., 51 Ga. App. 248 (179 SE 909); Coppedge v. Aycock Mortgage Acc. Corp., 54 Ga. App. 437 (188 SE 311); Tyler v. Jones County Bank, 78 Ga. App. 741 (1) (52 SE2d 547); Beck & Gregg Hdw. Co. v. Crum, 127 Ga. 94 (56 SE 242); Huff v. Porter, 89 Ga. App. 345 (79 SE2d 334).

2. Under the foregoing authorities it was error for the court to overrule the certiorari from the Civil Court of Fulton County for the reason that the debtor made out a prima facie defense against the plaintiff’s action and there was no evidence introduced by the plaintiff or defendant to the effect that the debt was not scheduled and that if it was not the plaintiff had no knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Judgment reversed.

Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur. Oze R. Horton, for plaintiff in error. M. Alvin Levy, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E.2d 831, 107 Ga. App. 574, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loudermilk-v-associates-discount-corp-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack