Crow v. Bowers
| Decision Date | 16 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | 16521. |
| Citation | 51 S.E.2d 855,204 Ga. 786 |
| Parties | CROW v. BOWERS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Mildred Watkins Bowers filed in Floyd Superior Court, against Wendell Dean Crow, a petition which alleged substantially the following: The defendant was indebted to the petitioner in the sum of $859.40, which debt arose out of a series of loans, made during 1946. The defendant promised to pay all of the loans on demand, but he has refused so to do. The money was desperately needed by the petitioner for the purpose of paying doctors and hospital bills incurred by her as the result of the serious illness of her son who was suffering from pneumonia, and for the purpose of obtaining further treatment of her son's illness, that required the administration of sulfa drugs which were most expensive. The defendant, fully aware of the above circumstances, told the petitioner that he could not pay the amount due at that time but again agreed to pay her in full. The petitioner, beset by her tribulations and her critical need for cash, pleaded with the defendant to pay her at least a part of the amount owed to her. Whereupon, the defendant procured a loan and arranged for $50 to be delivered to the petitioner if she would sign a release from all further claims which she might have against him for the entire debt, thereby seeking to defraud, coerce and take undue advantage of her extreme and immediate need for cash. The stress of the situation and the coercion incident to the fear which the petitioner felt for her child's health and very life had rendered her incapable of forming sound judgments or of conducting her business affairs. The defendant, fully cognizant of the pressure to which he was submitting the petitioner, importuned her to take the money and sign the release, promising her that he would repay her the debt in full at an early date in spite of the release. The petitioner's desperate need for money, coupled with the overpersuasion of her reason by the defendant, finally forced her to agree to accept the $50 and sign the release. Subsequently the defendant has reiterated his promise to repay the petitioner in full for the money he had borrowed from her, but he now refuses so to do. The petitioner has tendered and continues to tender the $50 she received for signing the release, but the defendant has refused to accept the same. The prayers were: that the court of equity assume jurisdiction, since the petitioner has no adequate remedy at law; that process issue; that the release signed by the petitioner be declared null and void that the petitioner have judgment against the defendant for $859.40, less the $50 received in consideration of signing the release; and that the petitioner have general equitable relief.
The defendant demurred on the sole ground that the petition failed to set forth a cause of action. The trial court overruled the demurrer, and the defendant excepted.
M G. Hicks, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.
James F....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Menendez v. Perishable Distributors, Inc.
...the terms of a release are not ambiguous. Henslee v. Houston, 566 F.2d 475, 478, 479-80 (5th Cir.1978); see also Crow v. Bowers, 204 Ga. 786, 51 S.E.2d 855, 857 (1949). More importantly, Georgia follows the common law rule that a general release executed in favor of one joint tortfeasor in ......
-
Pemrock, Inc. v. Essco Co.
...a general release may not be impeached by extrinsic evidence, see Tupper v. Hancock, 319 Mass. 105, 64 N.E.2d 441, 443; Crow v. Bowers, 204 Ga. 786, 51 S.E.2d 855; Schar v. Marier, 355 Pa. 153, 49 A.2d 387; Miller v. Gane, 288 Mass. 57, 192 N.E. 313; Radovsky v. Wexler, 273 Mass. 254, 173 N......
-
Owens v. Service Fire Ins. Co. of N. Y.
...if he signed the papers constituting the release they would see to it that the automobile was properly repaired. In Crow v. Bowers, 204 Ga. 786(2), 51 S.E.2d 855, 857, it is held as follows: 'Where it is sought to set aside a written instrument which is a full contract of release from all f......
-
Yun v. Um
...are unliquidated. Burgamy v. Holton, 165 Ga. 384, 141 S.E. 42 (1927). Here, the damages were unliquidated. Compare Crow v. Bowers, 204 Ga. 786(3), 51 S.E.2d 855 (1949). Yi testified that he felt entitled to $150,000 as "a 50/50 share" and not the $20,000 to $30,000 that Yun planned to give ......