Borders v. Wright, 53492

Decision Date08 April 1977
Docket NumberNo. 53492,No. 1,53492,1
Citation234 S.E.2d 708,141 Ga.App. 878
PartiesBetty B. S. BORDERS v. A. P. WRIGHT, Individually and d/b/a Wright's Farm
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Wiggins & Camp, William J. Wiggins, Carrollton, for appellant.

Tisinger, Tisinger & Vance, Robert D. Tisinger, Thomas E. Greer, Carrollton, for appellee.

SMITH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a verdict and judgment rendered in an action brought against the appellant, Betty B. Sinclair Borders, by "A. P. Wright, Individually, and d/b/a Wright's Farm." The action was one seeking to recover for advances or loans allegedly made to defendant or for her benefit. These alleged advances were partially proven by checks drawn on a "Wright's Farm" bank account. Most of them were signed by the defendant who at the time was bookkeeper for the plaintiff and was authorized by A. P. Wright to sign the checks. The defendant denied the indebtedness claiming the amounts represented by the checks were gifts to her or her children. She further pled, "That she had rendered to plaintiff valuable service as a bookkeeper for a period of time beginning in the summer of 1972 and extending through the summer of 1973 at the instance and request of plaintiff for which she has not been paid and of a value far in excess of any claim plaintiff may have against her." She also testified that the value of these services was $2,065. The action by the plaintiff sought to recover $1,958.79 plus interest. The verdict and judgment were for that amount together with $228.59 interest. The defendant appealed from this judgment and brought her case to this Court for review. We affirm.

1. The appellant contends that the evidence demands a finding " Wright's Farm" was a partnership composed of plaintiff and his wife and that because of this, the funds advanced belonged to the partnership and A. P. Wright as a partner could not recover a partnership debt. See in this connection Granger v. Knight, 134 Ga. 839(3), 68 S.E. 648; Frost v. Schackleford, 57 Ga. 260; Manning v. Gettys, 48 Ga.App. 203, 172 S.E. 571; City of Atlanta v. Williams, 119 Ga.App. 330, 167 S.E.2d 216; Smith v. Singleton, 124 Ga.App. 394, 184 S.E.2d 26. However, even should we assume (but we do not so decide) that the evidence would demand a finding the monies advanced by A. P. Wright to the defendant were funds belonging to the partnership, "Wright's Farm," the evidence clearly authorizes a finding the loans were made by A. P. Wright as an individual to the defendant. The method of conveying the funds was by checks drawn on a partnership account of which A. P. Wright was a member. This fact does not, as a matter of law, make the partnership a creditor of the defendant rather than the individual partner. The defendant's evidence and testimony show only claimed "gifts" from A. P. Wright, the plaintiff, and admits that one of the checks was for a loan from A. P. Wright. Nowhere does her evidence show the "gifts" (represented by checks) were "gifts" from the partnership, but show instead they were "gifts" from A. P. Wright and the only "loan" admitted by defendant (represented by a check) was a loan made by A. P. Wright. Other than the checks themselves there is absolutely no evidence that the partnership made any loans to the defendant. It does not appear the defendant knew of any such partnership, assuming one existed. A debt does not become owed to a partnership simply because a check drawn on an account of the partnership is used to transfer funds loaned to a debtor by one of the partners. The individual partner remains the creditor. It is a question of who the parties to the contract were, not the source of the funds. Council v. Teal, 122 Ga. 61(2), 49 S.E. 806; Hale v. Higginbotham, 228 Ga. 823, 826, 188 S.E.2d 515. There was no error in overruling the defendant's motion for judgment n. o. v.

2. One of the enumerations of error reads as follows: "The Court erred in improperly restricting appellant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Harrell v. Gomez
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 14, 1985
    ...Higginbotham, 228 Ga. 823, 826(4), 188 S.E.2d 515 (1972); Council v. Teal, 122 Ga. 61(2), 49 S.E. 806 (1904); Borders v. Wright, 141 Ga.App. 878, 879-880(1), 234 S.E.2d 708 (1977). There was no 3. Appellant next asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in his favor......
  • Stone Mountain Abstract Co. v. Alcovy Rlty. Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 1977
  • Young v. Higingbotham, A97A0577
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 1997
    ...grandson's personal debt, falling outside the scope of partnership business. This he failed to do. See, e.g., Borders v. Wright, 141 Ga.App. 878, 880(1), 234 S.E.2d 708 (1977). The record contains no proof that the loan proceeds were infused into the business. No checking account records or......
  • Goss & Goss Development Co. v. First Union Nat. Bank of Georgia, A90A0692
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 1990
    ...independent of that derived as a partner. See Harrell v. Gomez, 174 Ga.App. 8, 9(2), 329 S.E.2d 302 (1985); Borders v. Wright, 141 Ga.App. 878, 879(1), 234 S.E.2d 708 (1977); Walker v. Sheehan, 80 Ga.App. 606, 612(6), 56 S.E.2d 628 (1949). No such relationship is alleged. The trial court pr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT