Williams v. Commercial Tire Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Williams v. Commercial Tire Co.

147 S.E.2d 471, 113 Ga. App. 86, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 978

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 8, 1966

Docket41684

StatusPublished

This text of 147 S.E.2d 471 (Williams v. Commercial Tire Co.) 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

Williams v. Commercial Tire Co., 147 S.E.2d 471, 113 Ga. App. 86, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 978 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, Judge.

Properly construed, this was an action on open account and not a suit on an unconditional contract in writing. Gordy Tire Co. v. Bulman, 96 Ga. App. 739 (1) (101 SE2d 220). Accordingly, the defendant’s answer which denied the allegations of indebtedness and demand for payment was sufficient to set forth an issuable defense to the action and the [88]*88trial court erred in dismissing the answer and in entering a default judgment in behalf of the plaintiff. Jones v. Hodges, 21 Ga. App. 594 (1) (94 SE 831); De Soto Plantation Co. v. Hammett, 111 Ga. 24 (36 SE 304); Keiser v. American Exp. Co., 112 Ga. App. 493 (145 SE2d 698).

While Exhibit “A” to the petition was styled a “Conditional Sale Contract and Chattel Mortgage,” it was not alleged in the petition that such contract had been executed by the parties and the instrument was not declared upon as the basis of the plaintiff’s cause of action, the petition merely alleging that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in a stated amount as more fully shown by an attached bill of particulars which is an itemized statement of account.

As held by this court in Chatham Abattoir &c. Co. v. Painter Engineering Co., 28 Ga. App. 383 (111 SE 82), “In such a suit, the contract not being declared on, its breach does not constitute the cause of action, but the contract can be used merely as evidence of the indebtedness.” Since the petition in this case did not expressly declare upon a written contract as the basis of the suit, it was not necessary for the defendant to file a sworn plea of non est factum in order to be entitled to deny the execution of the contract or claim a material alteration therein should it be introduced on the trial of this case as evidence of the indebtedness sued upon. Howard Piano Co. v. Glover, 7 Ga. App. 548, 549 (67 SE 277).

Judgment reversed.

Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

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

Jordan, Judge.

Properly construed, this was an action on open account and not a suit on an unconditional contract in writing. Gordy Tire Co. v. Bulman, 96 Ga. App. 739 (1) (101 SE2d 220). Accordingly, the defendant’s answer which denied the allegations of indebtedness and demand for payment was sufficient to set forth an issuable defense to the action and the [88]*88trial court erred in dismissing the answer and in entering a default judgment in behalf of the plaintiff. Jones v. Hodges, 21 Ga. App. 594 (1) (94 SE 831); De Soto Plantation Co. v. Hammett, 111 Ga. 24 (36 SE 304); Keiser v. American Exp. Co., 112 Ga. App. 493 (145 SE2d 698).

While Exhibit “A” to the petition was styled a “Conditional Sale Contract and Chattel Mortgage,” it was not alleged in the petition that such contract had been executed by the parties and the instrument was not declared upon as the basis of the plaintiff’s cause of action, the petition merely alleging that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in a stated amount as more fully shown by an attached bill of particulars which is an itemized statement of account.

As held by this court in Chatham Abattoir &c. Co. v. Painter Engineering Co., 28 Ga. App. 383 (111 SE 82), “In such a suit, the contract not being declared on, its breach does not constitute the cause of action, but the contract can be used merely as evidence of the indebtedness.” Since the petition in this case did not expressly declare upon a written contract as the basis of the suit, it was not necessary for the defendant to file a sworn plea of non est factum in order to be entitled to deny the execution of the contract or claim a material alteration therein should it be introduced on the trial of this case as evidence of the indebtedness sued upon. Howard Piano Co. v. Glover, 7 Ga. App. 548, 549 (67 SE 277).

Judgment reversed.

Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.E.2d 471, 113 Ga. App. 86, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-commercial-tire-co-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack