Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Southern Discount Co. v. Ector

Southern Discount Co. v. Ector

268 S.E.2d 621, 246 Ga. 30, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 1005
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 27, 1980
Docket35822
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 268 S.E.2d 621 (Southern Discount Co. v. Ector) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Southern Discount Co. v. Ector, 268 S.E.2d 621, 246 Ga. 30, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 1005 (Ga. 1980).

Opinions

Per curiam.

Certiorari was granted to determine whether or not division one of the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Southern Discount Co. v. Ector, 152 Ga. App. 244 (262 SE2d 457) (1979), correctly declined to give retrospective operation to Ga. L. 1978, pp. 1033, 1034 (Code Ann. § 25-9903), in a case involving an industrial loan contract made before enactment of the 1978 Act. The decision of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.

1. A majority of this court is of the opinion that Hodges v. Community Loan &c. Corp., 234 Ga. 427 (216 SE2d 274) (1975), was wrongly decided and should be reversed insofar as it authorized forfeiture of the principal of loans under the Georgia Industrial Loan Act. The law correctly is expressed by Justice Ingram’s dissent, viz: "the lender shall forfeit all interest and other charges, but not any of the principal sum advanced to the borrower.” 234 Ga. at 434.

2. Remaining for decision is the question of whether or not the forfeiture of interest and other charges may be avoided in the present case by proof under Code Ann. § 25-9903 (c) that the loan contract was made in good faith in conformity with an interpretation of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act (1) by the appellate courts of this state or (2) in a rule or regulation officially promulgated by the commissioner after public hearings. This question was answered in the negative by the Court of Appeals upon the basis that retrospective application of the 1978 Act (Code Ann. § 25-9903) was not intended by the General Assembly because of the absence of language in the 1978 Act imperatively requiring, such application. 152 Ga. App. at 246. This court disagrees and reverses. Forfeitures and penalties are not favored. Courts should construe statutes relieving against forfeitures and penalties liberally so as to afford maximum relief. Such a construction of the Act does not bring it into conflict with our constitution since a person has no vested rights to a forfeiture or penalty. Summerour v. Cartrett, 220 Ga. 31, 32 (136 SE2d 724) (1964); Roby v. Newton, 121 Ga. 679, 682, [31]*31(49 SE 694) (1904); Renfroe v. Colquitt, 74 Ga. 618 (2a) (1885); O’Kelly v. Athens Mfg. Co., 36 Ga. 51 (1867); 36 AmJur2d 629, Forfeitures & Penalties, § 26; 37 CJS 8, Forfeitures, § 4 (b). Cf. Maynard v. Marshall, 91 Ga. 840 (18 SE 403) (1893), in which the penalty merely was ameliorated rather than lifted by the subsequent legislation.

Argued March 10, 1980 Decided May 27, 1980 Rehearing denied June 17, 1980. John E. Tomlinson, J. Lamar Nix, for appellant. Ralph Goldberg, for appellee. W. Rhett Tanner, Joe Ck Davis, Jr., John C. Porter, Jr., Charles M. Baird, amici curiae.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Jordan, P. J., Hill and Clarke, JJ., who dissent.

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

Related

HAUGABOOK v. Crisler
677 S.E.2d 355 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Head v. Thomason
578 S.E.2d 426 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2003)
Terry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
422 S.E.2d 212 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992)
Bowen v. Griffith
366 S.E.2d 293 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1988)
Bradford v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORPORATION OF GEORGIA
359 S.E.2d 757 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Southern Guaranty Corp. v. Doyle
353 S.E.2d 510 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1987)
Richard Doyle v. Southern Guaranty Corporation, Jimmy E. Wood v. Fort Wayne Mortgage Co.
795 F.2d 907 (Eleventh Circuit, 1986)
Ehrman v. Manning
339 S.E.2d 652 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Ward v. HUDCO LOAN COMPANY
328 S.E.2d 729 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1985)
Varner v. Century Finance Co.
738 F.2d 1143 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
Garrett Varner, Cross-Appellant v. Century Finance Company, Inc., Cross-Appellee. Pearl M. Bradley v. Termplan, Inc., Josephine Simpson, Cross-Appellant v. Termplan, Inc. Of Georgia, Cross-Appellee
738 F.2d 1143 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
Wasser v. Citizens & Southern National Bank
318 S.E.2d 518 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
Fountain v. Dixie Finance Corp. of Georgia, Inc.
314 S.E.2d 906 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984)
Dorsey v. West
311 S.E.2d 816 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984)
Galletta v. HARDISON, COMMISSIONER
308 S.E.2d 47 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
West v. Dorsey
305 S.E.2d 840 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Jacqueline Brown v. Termplan, Inc., of East Atlanta
693 F.2d 1047 (Eleventh Circuit, 1982)
Henson v. Dixie Finance Corp.
296 S.E.2d 593 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982)
U. S. Life Credit Corp. v. Johnson
290 S.E.2d 280 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
US LIFE CREDIT CORPORATION v. Johnson
287 S.E.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 S.E.2d 621, 246 Ga. 30, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 1005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-discount-co-v-ector-ga-1980.