Southeastern Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v. McCurdy

422 S.E.2d 574, 205 Ga. App. 550, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 1257
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 23, 1992
DocketA92A1513
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 422 S.E.2d 574 (Southeastern Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v. McCurdy) 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
Southeastern Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v. McCurdy, 422 S.E.2d 574, 205 Ga. App. 550, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 1257 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Pope, Judge.

Plaintiff Southeastern Automotive Warehouse, Inc., extended a line of credit to Carmichael’s Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (“Carmichael’s”). The form application for the line of credit was filled out and signed by defendant Carol McCurdy, who was president of Carmichael’s. In the space provided on the application for the amount of credit requested, defendant wrote “$500 - $5000.” Also contained in the document was a paragraph stating that the undersigned agreed personally to guarantee payment for goods purchased. At the end of the document defendant signed her name on the space provided for “Signature” and on the space provided below for “Title,” defendant wrote “President.” Plaintiff supplied automobile parts to Carmichael’s and ultimately brought suit against Carmichael’s on the open account and against defendant as guarantor, praying for judgment of over $38,000. Summary judgment was granted to defendant and plaintiff appeals.

We affirm. Even if, as plaintiff argues, defendant signed the guaranty agreement in her personal capacity, defendant is discharged from the entire debt because plaintiff, the creditor, increased the guarantor’s risk by extending Carmichael’s credit beyond the credit limit agreed to in the credit application/guaranty agreement. See West &c. Bldg. Materials of Savannah v. Liberty Mtg. Corp., 160 Ga. App. 323 (287 SE2d 320) (1981). Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the facts of the case now before us are distinguishable from those in Brock Candy Co. v. Craton, 33 Ga. App. 690 (127 SE 619) (1925) (in which we held the surety, who agreed to obligate himself up to a certain amount of debt owed by the principal debtor but did not specify any limit to the credit which might be extended to the debtor, was not discharged by the creditor’s extension of credit beyond the amount guaranteed by the surety), for the same reasons we noted in the West opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

Carley, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur. *551 Decided September 23, 1992. Reinhardt, Whitley & Wilmot, Robert C. Wilmot, for appellant. Allen, Kelley & Sowell, D. Lynn Kelley, for appellee.

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

Related

Builders Development Corp. v. Hughes Supply, Inc.
529 S.E.2d 388 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Carpenter v. Cordele Electric Supply, Inc.
469 S.E.2d 799 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Etheridge Oil Co. v. Panciera
818 F. Supp. 480 (D. Rhode Island, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
422 S.E.2d 574, 205 Ga. App. 550, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 1257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southeastern-automotive-warehouse-inc-v-mccurdy-gactapp-1992.