Watkins Co. v. Seawright

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Watkins Co. v. Seawright

154 S.E. 293, 41 Ga. App. 617, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 1022

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 15, 1930

Docket20576

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 154 S.E. 293 (Watkins Co. v. Seawright) 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

Watkins Co. v. Seawright, 154 S.E. 293, 41 Ga. App. 617, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 1022 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where sureties sued by a creditor gave the statutory notice to the creditor to proceed to collect the debt out of the principal, and on the trial it was admitted by the creditor that it had never filed any suit against the principal, and that, when the statutory notice was served on it, the principal resided in Eulton county, Georgia, and that he had not been served in the pending suit, it was not error for the court to admit in evidence the notice by the defendant sureties to the creditor to proceed to collect the debt out of the principal, over the objections that under a certain provision of the contract sued on and signed by the sureties they had waived their right to set up as a defense the failure of the creditor to comply with the notice to sue the principal, and that the notice tendered in evidence tended to vary and contradict the terms of the written contract sued on. The provision in question stipulated that “We, the undersigned sureties do hereby waive notice of the acceptance of this agreement and diligence in bringing action against said second parly [the principal].” (Italics ours.) Waiving diligence or promptness in bringing a suit against the principal does not mean acquiescence in the failure lo bring any suit at all. The authorities cited by counsel for the plaintiff in error are distinguished by their facts from this ease.

2. Under the facts of the case as disclosed by the agreed statement of facts (which are quite different from the facts as shown by the record when [618]*618this case was here before,—see 40 Ga. App. 314, 149 S. E. 389), the court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendants, nor thereafter in refusing to grant a new trial.

Decided July 15, 1930. Rehearing denied July 19, 1930. Watkins, Asbill & Watkins, W. B. Hollingsworth, T. Glenn Borough, for plaintiff. Culpepper & Murphy, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe amd Bloodworth, JJ., concur.'

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where sureties sued by a creditor gave the statutory notice to the creditor to proceed to collect the debt out of the principal, and on the trial it was admitted by the creditor that it had never filed any suit against the principal, and that, when the statutory notice was served on it, the principal resided in Eulton county, Georgia, and that he had not been served in the pending suit, it was not error for the court to admit in evidence the notice by the defendant sureties to the creditor to proceed to collect the debt out of the principal, over the objections that under a certain provision of the contract sued on and signed by the sureties they had waived their right to set up as a defense the failure of the creditor to comply with the notice to sue the principal, and that the notice tendered in evidence tended to vary and contradict the terms of the written contract sued on. The provision in question stipulated that “We, the undersigned sureties do hereby waive notice of the acceptance of this agreement and diligence in bringing action against said second parly [the principal].” (Italics ours.) Waiving diligence or promptness in bringing a suit against the principal does not mean acquiescence in the failure lo bring any suit at all. The authorities cited by counsel for the plaintiff in error are distinguished by their facts from this ease.

2. Under the facts of the case as disclosed by the agreed statement of facts (which are quite different from the facts as shown by the record when [618]*618this case was here before,—see 40 Ga. App. 314, 149 S. E. 389), the court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendants, nor thereafter in refusing to grant a new trial.

Decided July 15, 1930. Rehearing denied July 19, 1930. Watkins, Asbill & Watkins, W. B. Hollingsworth, T. Glenn Borough, for plaintiff. Culpepper & Murphy, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe amd Bloodworth, JJ., concur.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 S.E. 293, 41 Ga. App. 617, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 1022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-co-v-seawright-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack