Plastics Development Corporation v. Flexible Products Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Plastics Development Corporation v. Flexible Products Company

145 S.E.2d 655, 112 Ga. App. 460, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 741

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 15, 1965

Docket41571

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 145 S.E.2d 655 (Plastics Development Corporation v. Flexible Products Company) 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

Plastics Development Corporation v. Flexible Products Company, 145 S.E.2d 655, 112 Ga. App. 460, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 741 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Haul, Judge.

The defendant contends that the petition and its exhibits showing the above quoted provision show that the amount sued for is usurious.

“While it is lawful and not usurious to charge one price for property sold for cash and a higher price for the same property if sold on credit, still, if the contract is that the property is to be sold at a cash valuation, and that certain payments are to be deferred, in consideration that a greater rate of interest than that allowed by law is to be paid by the purchaser, then the contract would be usurious.” Irvin v. Mathews, 75 Ga. 739; Rushing v. Worsham & Co., 102 Ga. 825, 829 (30 SE 541); Bird v. Benton, 127 Ga. 371, 373 (56 SE 450); E. Tris Napier Co. v. Trawick, 164 Ga. 781, 782 (139 SE 552).

The invoices reflecting the terms of the sale transactions alleged in the present petition show on their face the intent to *462 charge more for the forbearance of money than the highest rate permitted by law. Code § 57-101; Shealy v. Toole, 56 Ga. 210, 213; Bird v. Benton, supra, 374; Ozmore v. Coram, 133 Ga. 250 (65 SE 448); accord Atlanta Savings Bank v. Spencer, 107 Ga. 629, 633 (33 SE 878).

Therefore the trial court erred in overruling demurrers numbered 3 and 4 to the allegations of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition that the plaintiff is entitled to recover sums calculated in accordance with the quoted provision of the invoices.

Since the petition does not show that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount shown on the invoices as the price of the goods, the trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer. Code § 57-112. The trial court did not err in overruling the special demurrer on the ground that the exhibits show on their face the amount sued for was usurious, because the exhibits show only that part of the amount sued for—that calculated under the quoted provision for interest—was usurious. The trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer numbered 2 to paragraph 1 of the petition, since not all the allegations of that paragraph, demurred to as a whole, were subject to the demurrer.

Judgment overruling demurrers numbered 8 and 4 t° paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

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

Haul, Judge.

The defendant contends that the petition and its exhibits showing the above quoted provision show that the amount sued for is usurious.

“While it is lawful and not usurious to charge one price for property sold for cash and a higher price for the same property if sold on credit, still, if the contract is that the property is to be sold at a cash valuation, and that certain payments are to be deferred, in consideration that a greater rate of interest than that allowed by law is to be paid by the purchaser, then the contract would be usurious.” Irvin v. Mathews, 75 Ga. 739; Rushing v. Worsham & Co., 102 Ga. 825, 829 (30 SE 541); Bird v. Benton, 127 Ga. 371, 373 (56 SE 450); E. Tris Napier Co. v. Trawick, 164 Ga. 781, 782 (139 SE 552).

The invoices reflecting the terms of the sale transactions alleged in the present petition show on their face the intent to *462 charge more for the forbearance of money than the highest rate permitted by law. Code § 57-101; Shealy v. Toole, 56 Ga. 210, 213; Bird v. Benton, supra, 374; Ozmore v. Coram, 133 Ga. 250 (65 SE 448); accord Atlanta Savings Bank v. Spencer, 107 Ga. 629, 633 (33 SE 878).

Therefore the trial court erred in overruling demurrers numbered 3 and 4 to the allegations of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition that the plaintiff is entitled to recover sums calculated in accordance with the quoted provision of the invoices.

Since the petition does not show that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount shown on the invoices as the price of the goods, the trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer. Code § 57-112. The trial court did not err in overruling the special demurrer on the ground that the exhibits show on their face the amount sued for was usurious, because the exhibits show only that part of the amount sued for—that calculated under the quoted provision for interest—was usurious. The trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer numbered 2 to paragraph 1 of the petition, since not all the allegations of that paragraph, demurred to as a whole, were subject to the demurrer.

Judgment overruling demurrers numbered 8 and 4 t° paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E.2d 655, 112 Ga. App. 460, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plastics-development-corporation-v-flexible-products-company-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack