Colter v. Consolidated Credit Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 September 1967
• Docket Number: No. 43006,No. 3,43006,3
• Citation: 157 S.E.2d 812,116 Ga.App. 520
• Parties: Pauline COLTER et al. v. CONSOLIDATED CREDIT CORPORATION
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 812

157 S.E.2d 812

116 Ga.App. 520

Pauline COLTER et al. v. CONSOLIDATED CREDIT CORPORATION.

No. 43006.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

Sept. 27, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1967.

John D. Edge, Calhoun, for appellants.

J. W. Yarbrought, Chattsworth, Walter H. Bolling, Dalton, for appellee. Syllabus Opinion by the Court

JORDAN, Presiding Judge.

When this case was here previously, this court reversed the order of the trial court dismissing the affidavit of illegality. Colter v. Consolidated Credit Corp., 115 Ga.App. 408, 154 S.E.2d 713. The defendants in fi fa. then amended their affidavit of illegality, alleging in effect that if the plaintiff were operating under the Georgia Industrial Loan Act of 1955, such Act is in violation of various provisions of the Constitution of Georgia and of the United States. The plaintiff in fi fa. amended its pleadings to show that it is duly licensed under the Act, and had furnished the defendants with the statement required by the Act. In a trial before a jury a representative of the plaintiff testified generally as to compliance with the Act by a licensed lender in making a loan to the defendants, but was unable to state of his own knowledge whether the defendants received the required statement. Only one of the defendants testified, and although she denied receiving a statement of how the various charges were applied, she did admit the transaction, and a balance due as alleged in the foreclosure affidavit, erroneously stated by counsel in questioning on cross examination as $488.09 instead of $448.09. On motion of the plaintiff the trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered accordingly for $448.09, from which the defendants appeal. Held:

1. While the defendants asserted issues as to the constitutionality of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act in their amended affidavit of illegality, and enumerate as error the failure of the trial court to consider such issues, their brief contains no argument or citations of authority to support such contentions. Even if such issues were properly raised in the lower court they must now be treated as abandoned. Rule 17(c)(2) of this court. No other basis appearing to bring the appeal within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court it comes within the jurisdiction of this court. Code Ann. §§ 2-3704, 2-3708; Clark v. Liberty Loan Corp., 223 Ga. 351, 155 S.E.2d 19.

2. Although there is uncontradicted evidence disclosing a transaction purportedly made under the provisions of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act of 1955, as to which one of the defendants admits an unpaid balance as alleged, the sole witness for the plaintiff was unable to show the exact details of the transaction, and admitted the did not know whether the defendants received the required itemized statement. He makes it quite clear that his testimony relates he did not deal with the take place, and that he did not deal with the defendants personally. The only defendant who testified denied receiving such a statement. When the case was here previously this court held that if...