Beazley v. Georgia R. R. Bank & Trust Co., 54675
| Decision Date | 01 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 54675,No. 1,54675,1 |
| Citation | 144 Ga.App. 215,241 S.E.2d 39 |
| Parties | B. G. BEAZLEY et al. v. GEORGIA RAILROAD BANK & TRUST COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bobby G. Beazley, for appellants.
Nixon, Yow, Waller & Capers, O. Palmour Hollis, Roy D. Tritt, Augusta, for appellee.
This is a suit to recover the amount due on a promissory note plus interest and attorney fees. Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff bank and defendants appeal. Held :
1. Plaintiff's request for admissions went unanswered and, accordingly, the following stand admitted: jurisdiction and venue; the genuineness of the note; the defendants' signatures thereon; the receipt of the ten-day letter demanding payment; and, the failure to pay the note. These admissions provided a prima facie right to judgment for plaintiff. Freezamatic Corp. v. Brigadier etc. Corp., 125 Ga.App. 767, 189 S.E.2d 108.
2. Defendants raised the defenses of failure of consideration, discharge in bankruptcy and usury. An examination of them along with the undisputed related facts reveals the absence of any material issue of fact requiring trial.
a. Failure of Consideration. The note sued on was a renewal instrument. No consideration is necessary for an instrument given in payment of an antecedent obligation of any kind. General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Solomon, 124 Ga.App. 308, 183 S.E.2d 573.
b. Discharge in Bankruptcy. While the record indicates that the original note was discharged in bankruptcy, the note on which this suit is based was a reaffirmation of the earlier debt and was executed after the bankruptcy. A reaffirmation of a debt discharged in bankruptcy again makes the debt collectible. Monroe v. Martin, 137 Ga. 262, 73 S.E. 341.
c. Usury. The note was due 91 days after execution and the interest was calculated on a 360-day year, causing a slight excess above the legal rate of 9% Per annum to 9.13%. This was authorized and does not constitute usury under the holding in Patton v. Bank of Lafayette, 124 Ga. 965(4), 53 S.E. 664.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. Tattnall Bank
...an instrument given in payment of, or as security for, an antecedent obligation of any kind. OCGA § 11-3-408; Beazley v. Ga. R. Bank etc., 144 Ga.App. 215(2a), 241 S.E.2d 39. Accordingly, plaintiff's evidence shows a prima facie entitlement to judgment which was uncontradicted by any eviden......
-
Alacrity Holdings 6, LLC v. Popli (In re Alacrity Holdings 6, LLC)
... ... Georgia, Gainesville Division September 8, 2023 ... and no bank statements, checks, or communications evidencing ... transferred through his law firm's trust account ... Defendant Popli does not ... [ 20 ] Guarantee Co. of N ... Am. v. Gary's Grading & Pipeline ... debt Kumar owed Popli. See Beazley v. Georgia R.R. Bank ... & Trust Co. , 144 ... ...
-
Voitier v. First Nat. Bank of Commerce, Civ. A. No. 80-3397.
...110, 544 P.2d 1310 (1976) (en banc). Not all courts have followed American Timber, however. In Beazley v. Georgia Railroad Bank & Trust Co., 144 Ga.App. 215, 241 S.E.2d 39, 40 (1977), a Georgia intermediate court followed a 1906 decision of the Georgia Supreme Court and found that a loan wh......
-
THC Financial Corp. v. Managed Inv. Corp.
...680, 586 P.2d 830, 836 (1978). But see Martin v. Moore, 269 Ark. 375, 601 S.W.2d 838, 839 (1980); Beazley v. Georgia Railroad Bank & Trust Co., 144 Ga.App. 215, 241 S.E.2d 39, 40 (1977). Although we agree with the reasoning of American Timber and its progeny, we do not find it dispositive o......