Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Williams v. Rowe Banking Company

Williams v. Rowe Banking Company

55 S.E.2d 123, 205 Ga. 770, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 577
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 15, 1949
Docket16771.
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 55 S.E.2d 123 (Williams v. Rowe Banking Company) 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
Williams v. Rowe Banking Company, 55 S.E.2d 123, 205 Ga. 770, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 577 (Ga. 1949).

Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Williams insists that, when he executed his note to the bank and received in return therefor the note Thomas had given the bank with the notation “Paid by new note by C. F. Williams,” this was a novation, and precluded the bank from exercising the power of sale contained in the security deed.

A novation is a complete contract within itself, and has four essential requisites: (1) a previous valid obligation, (2) the agreement of all the parties to.the new contract, (3) the ex-tinguishment of the old contract, (4) the validity of the new one. Savannah Bank & Trust Co. v. Wolff, 191 Ga. 111 (4) (11 S. E. 2d, 766). Under the facts here, the original note and security deed executed by Thomas to the Bank of Toccoa constituted a single contract. Cocke v. Bank of Dawson, 180 Ga. 714 (1) (180 S. E. 711). The acceptance of the note of Williams in lieu of the note by Thomas, leaving unchanged the security deed with power of sale, which had been executed by Thomas in favor of the bank, was only a change in one of the terms of the original contract. It changed the source of payment, but not the manner of sale as provided for in the deed in the event of default, as the terms of the deed still carried the *772 right to sell the land as the property of Thomas in the event of a failure to pay in accordance with its terms. Accordingly, there was no extinguishment of all the terms of the original contract, and the new contract is lacking in that essential element to constitute a novation.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Georgialina Enterprises, Inc. v. Frakes
551 S.E.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Farris v. Pazol
305 S.E.2d 472 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Gerald J. Lindenberg v. First Federal Savings and Loan
691 F.2d 974 (First Circuit, 1982)
King v. Citizens & Southern National Bank (In Re King)
19 B.R. 409 (M.D. Georgia, 1982)
Lindenberg v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
528 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Georgia, 1981)
City of Buford v. International Systems, Inc.
282 S.E.2d 165 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Gosnell v. Waldrip
282 S.E.2d 168 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Franchise Enterprises, Inc. v. Ridgeway
278 S.E.2d 33 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Wall v. Federal Land Bank
274 S.E.2d 753 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Sutton v. General Electric Credit Corp.
268 S.E.2d 789 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
SPORTSMAN CAMPING CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. v. Bagwell
231 S.E.2d 118 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Scott v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.
172 S.E.2d 365 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Lewis v. Storch
169 S.E.2d 726 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Melton v. Lowe
161 S.E.2d 912 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Maguire v. Ivey
91 S.E.2d 35 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Mandeville v. First National Bank
57 S.E.2d 553 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 S.E.2d 123, 205 Ga. 770, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-rowe-banking-company-ga-1949.