Natl. Acceptance Co. v. Fulton National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Natl. Acceptance Co. v. Fulton National Bank

152 S.E.2d 3, 114 Ga. App. 562, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 848

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 3, 1966

Docket41878

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 S.E.2d 3 (Natl. Acceptance Co. v. Fulton National Bank) 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

Natl. Acceptance Co. v. Fulton National Bank, 152 S.E.2d 3, 114 Ga. App. 562, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 848 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

This court in its previous opinion deplored the confusion, if not conflict, in judicial precedents deciding whether a contract in dispute was one of suretyship or guaranty. National Acceptance Co. v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 113 Ga. App. 517, 518 (148 SE2d 907). We relied upon the language of the Supreme Court in Greenwold Grift Co. v. Durham, 191 Ga. 586 (13 SE2d 346), wherein it stated: “An undertaking by which one induces the subsequent furnishing of goods to a third person . . . has been recognized as an independent contract of guaranty and not of suretyship. . . .” The Supreme Court now holds that in order to create a contract of guaranty there must be a “new, separate and independent consideration” flowing directly to the promisor.

Our judgment in this case having been reversed by the Supreme Court in Wolkin v. National Acceptance Co., 222 Ga. 487 (150 SE2d 831), we hereby vacate our judgment and enter another affirming the judgment of the trial court for the reasons stated by the Supreme Court in its opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

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

Hall, Judge.

This court in its previous opinion deplored the confusion, if not conflict, in judicial precedents deciding whether a contract in dispute was one of suretyship or guaranty. National Acceptance Co. v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 113 Ga. App. 517, 518 (148 SE2d 907). We relied upon the language of the Supreme Court in Greenwold Grift Co. v. Durham, 191 Ga. 586 (13 SE2d 346), wherein it stated: “An undertaking by which one induces the subsequent furnishing of goods to a third person . . . has been recognized as an independent contract of guaranty and not of suretyship. . . .” The Supreme Court now holds that in order to create a contract of guaranty there must be a “new, separate and independent consideration” flowing directly to the promisor.

Our judgment in this case having been reversed by the Supreme Court in Wolkin v. National Acceptance Co., 222 Ga. 487 (150 SE2d 831), we hereby vacate our judgment and enter another affirming the judgment of the trial court for the reasons stated by the Supreme Court in its opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.E.2d 3, 114 Ga. App. 562, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/natl-acceptance-co-v-fulton-national-bank-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack