Thompson v. Carrollton Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thompson v. Carrollton Bank

116 S.E. 39, 29 Ga. App. 520, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 102

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 10, 1923

Docket13331

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 116 S.E. 39 (Thompson v. Carrollton 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

Thompson v. Carrollton Bank, 116 S.E. 39, 29 Ga. App. 520, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 102 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. The facts alleged in the defendant’s answer did not show an accord and satisfaction. “ Accord and satisfaction is where the parties, by a subsequent agreement, have satisfied the former one, and the latter agreement has been executed.” Civil Code (1910), § 4326. The allegations with reference to the consideration and method of payment of the notes sued on nowhere refer to any “ subsequent ” agreement whereby the parties were to give and accept something in satisfaction of such notes. Alfred Struck Co. v. Slicer, 23 Ga. App. 52, 55 (97 S. E. 455). The alleged agreement and understanding with the plaintiff’s [521]*521cashier relates to a time prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of the notes.

Decided February 10, 1923. James Beall, for plaintiff in error. 8. Eolderness, Willis Smith, Boylcin & Boylcin, contra.

2. Treated as a plea of payment (although subject to special demurrer, since it failed to allege with reasonable certainty when and how the payments were made), the plea was good against an oral motion to strike, since the effect of the plea and the proffered amendment is that, subsequently to the making of the notes sued on, the -debt represented thereby had been fully paid off and discharged. Wortham v. Sinclair, 98 Ga. 173 (25 S. E. 414); Thomas v. Siesel, 2 Ga. App. 663 (58 S. E. 1131); Netherland v. First National Bank, 11 Ga. App. 110 (74 S. E. 849); Epstein Co. v. Thomas, 15 Ga. App. 741 (4) (84 S. E. 201).

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. The facts alleged in the defendant’s answer did not show an accord and satisfaction. “ Accord and satisfaction is where the parties, by a subsequent agreement, have satisfied the former one, and the latter agreement has been executed.” Civil Code (1910), § 4326. The allegations with reference to the consideration and method of payment of the notes sued on nowhere refer to any “ subsequent ” agreement whereby the parties were to give and accept something in satisfaction of such notes. Alfred Struck Co. v. Slicer, 23 Ga. App. 52, 55 (97 S. E. 455). The alleged agreement and understanding with the plaintiff’s [521]*521cashier relates to a time prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of the notes.

Decided February 10, 1923. James Beall, for plaintiff in error. 8. Eolderness, Willis Smith, Boylcin & Boylcin, contra.

2. Treated as a plea of payment (although subject to special demurrer, since it failed to allege with reasonable certainty when and how the payments were made), the plea was good against an oral motion to strike, since the effect of the plea and the proffered amendment is that, subsequently to the making of the notes sued on, the -debt represented thereby had been fully paid off and discharged. Wortham v. Sinclair, 98 Ga. 173 (25 S. E. 414); Thomas v. Siesel, 2 Ga. App. 663 (58 S. E. 1131); Netherland v. First National Bank, 11 Ga. App. 110 (74 S. E. 849); Epstein Co. v. Thomas, 15 Ga. App. 741 (4) (84 S. E. 201).

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 39, 29 Ga. App. 520, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-carrollton-bank-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack