Craig v. Citizens and Southern Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 31 May 1977
• Docket Number: No. 53735,No. 3,53735,3
• Citation: Craig v. Citizens and Southern Nat. Bank, 236 S.E.2d 166, 142 Ga.App. 474 (Ga. App. 1977)
• Parties: W. G. CRAIG et al. v. CITIZENS AND SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 166

236 S.E.2d 166

142 Ga.App. 474

W. G. CRAIG et al. v.CITIZENS AND SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK.

No. 53735.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

May 31, 1977.

Arthur P. Tranakos, Atlanta, for appellants.

Alston, Miller & Gaines, Franklin R. Nix, Atlanta, for appellee.

MARSHALL, Judge.

The appellant corporation and its president, Craig, as guarantor in his individual capacity, appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellee, C & S Bank.

Simply stated, the facts reflect that the 151 Spring Street Corporation borrowed $155,000 in two separate notes from the bank.The corporation's president, Craig, personally guaranteed both notes.Each note was an unconditional 90-day demand note.Both became in default.The bank made demand, including attorney fees and costs.In their answers, both defendants(appellants) admitted the existence of the notes and that both were signed by Craig, both in his capacity as president and in his personal capacity as guarantor.Upon motion for summary judgment, the appellants answered by affidavit, showing that there was a contemporaneous agreement which had been breached by the bank and, therefore, the appellants were not in default.On the day before the hearing scheduled for the motion for summary judgment, the bank moved to strike the affidavits of the appellants.The court granted the motion to strike the affidavits and granted the motion for summary judgment.The appellants enumerate as error the striking of the affidavits as being responsive to a motion improperly served upon them less than 5 days before the hearing in contravention of Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 617;1967, pp. 226, 229, 230(Code Ann. § 81A-106(d)), as well as an enumeration concerning the grant of summary judgment.Held :

1.We affirm.There is no evidence of a contemporaneous agreement affecting the two demand notes in this litigation except by the parol statements contained in the affidavits.The appellants admitted the execution of the notes, which are plain and unambiguous in their terms.The appellants did not dispute that the notes were both in default nor that proper demand had been made for the sums due.Nor do the appellants allege that the notes were entered into by reason of fraud, accident or mistake.

By their affidavits, the appellants offered nothing more than parol evidence to prove a condition precedent to the satisfactory conclusion of a plain, unambiguous written contract.While the rule in many jurisdictions would permit parol evidence to show conditions precedent to the contract, Georgia's rule is to the contrary.Smith v. Standard Oil Co., 227 Ga. 268(1), 180 S.E.2d 691(1970);Deck House, Inc. v. Scarborough Etc., Inc., 139 Ga.App. 173, 175, 228 S.E.2d 142(1976);Lyon v. Patterson, 138 Ga.App. 816, 227 S.E.2d 423(1976).The prevailing attitude of our appellate courts is typified by the reasoning expressed in Lee v. Garland, 208 Ga. 251(1), 66 S.E.2d 223(1951): "The whole tenor of the (affidavits) in the case at bar is to change by parol an absolute unconditional promissory note into a conditional obligation; and that can not be done in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, the allegation of which must always be full and explicit.(Cits.)In other words, where parties have reduced to writing what appears to be a complete and certain agreement, it will in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake be conclusively presumed that the writing contains the entire contract.(Cit.)'It is in vain to have writings, if parties can be allowed deliberately to reduce a contract to writing and then set up by parol a totally different contract.'(Cit.)It is true, of course, that the maker of a note, when sued, has the right to show by parol, if he can, a want or failure of consideration, but he will not be allowed to prove that his obligation to pay was dependent or conditional upon the promisee's compliance with a prior or contemporaneous agreement not expressed in the note, unless the execution of the note was...