Milton Bradley Company v. Carter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Milton Bradley Company v. Carter

17 S.E.2d 896, 66 Ga. App. 264, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 195

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 1, 1941

Docket29049.

StatusPublished

This text of 17 S.E.2d 896 (Milton Bradley Company v. Carter) 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

Milton Bradley Company v. Carter, 17 S.E.2d 896, 66 Ga. App. 264, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 195 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Eelton, J.

Milton Bradley Company of Georgia foreclosed a document treated by the parties as a bill of sale to secure debt against R. N. Carter to recover the principal sum of $914, and interest. The document, among other things which it is not necessary to discuss, was in the form of a promissory note for $914 principal, payable to Milton Bradley Company, due on demand, and had been transferred to the plaintiff. The defendant filed an affidavit of illegality in which he set up that there was a credit due for' depreciation, and also that there was a total want of consideration for the note. The jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted to the overruling of its motion for new trial, which was based on the general grounds only.

The undisputed evidence was to the effect that the defendant, who worked for the payee and used a car in its business, traded in a wrecked car of the original payee on another car which he bought in his own name, paying the difference in cash with his own money; *265 that he traded in this second car on a new Dodge sedan which is involved in the present litigation; that the amount allowed to him on the wrecked car of the company’s was $135 or $150, which was the only consideration for the note. The note provided that depreciation and repairs were to be deducted on settlement of the note. It was agreed that the depreciation on the Dodge was $589, so if this amount is deducted from the amounts which under the evidence could be found to be due on the note, to wit, $135 or $150, such a credit would discharge the note. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur..

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

Eelton, J.

Milton Bradley Company of Georgia foreclosed a document treated by the parties as a bill of sale to secure debt against R. N. Carter to recover the principal sum of $914, and interest. The document, among other things which it is not necessary to discuss, was in the form of a promissory note for $914 principal, payable to Milton Bradley Company, due on demand, and had been transferred to the plaintiff. The defendant filed an affidavit of illegality in which he set up that there was a credit due for' depreciation, and also that there was a total want of consideration for the note. The jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted to the overruling of its motion for new trial, which was based on the general grounds only.

The undisputed evidence was to the effect that the defendant, who worked for the payee and used a car in its business, traded in a wrecked car of the original payee on another car which he bought in his own name, paying the difference in cash with his own money; *265 that he traded in this second car on a new Dodge sedan which is involved in the present litigation; that the amount allowed to him on the wrecked car of the company’s was $135 or $150, which was the only consideration for the note. The note provided that depreciation and repairs were to be deducted on settlement of the note. It was agreed that the depreciation on the Dodge was $589, so if this amount is deducted from the amounts which under the evidence could be found to be due on the note, to wit, $135 or $150, such a credit would discharge the note. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.E.2d 896, 66 Ga. App. 264, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milton-bradley-company-v-carter-gactapp-1941.