Fields v. Willis
Decision Date | 14 June 1905 |
Citation | 123 Ga. 272,51 S.E. 280 |
Parties | FIELDS. v. WILLIS. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Guaranty—Construction.
C. and F. enter into a written contract whereby C. agrees to sell to F. a certain number of cattle at a stipulated price and is to receive a stated advance on the purchase money, and C. further agrees to pay a certain amount as liquidated damages in case he fails to comply with his agreement. After the signatures to the contract appears the following, "We the undersigned guarantee the fulfillment of the above contract, " which was signed by W. The obligation of W., resting on no independent consideration, is that of surety.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 25, Cent. Dig. Guaranty, § 4; vol. 40, Cent Dig. Principal and Surety, § 6.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Mitchell County; W. N. Spence, Judge.
Action by E. J. Willis against S. N. Fields. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.
Fields instituted suit in the superior court of Mitchell county against J. M. Cox, a resident of that county, and E. J. Willis, a resident of the county of Decatur. It was alleged in the petition that the plaintiff madeand entered into a written contract with the defendants, a copy of which was attached to the petition, by which the plaintiff agreed to purchase from Cox certain cattle at named prices, according to the terms of the contract. The plaintiff alleged full compliance on his part with the contract in the manner set out in the declaration, whereby the defendants became liable to him in the amount of damages stipulated, to wit, $600. The following is a copy of the contract sued on:
At the appearance term Willis demurred specially to the petition, and asked that it be dismissed upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction of his person; that if he was liable he was liable under the contract declared upon as a guarantor, and not as a surety, and could only be sued in the county of his residence. The court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the petition, and the exception is to this judgment of the court.
Sam S. Bennet, for plaintiff in error.
Albert H. Russell, for defendant in error.
EVANS, J. (after stating the facts). If the liability of Willis was that of a guarantor, the court did not err in dismissing the suit,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Good Gateway, LLC v. NRCT, LLC (In re Bay Circle Props., LLC)
...liability is secondary, triggered by the borrower's default on the obligation that the borrower owes to the lender. Fields v. Willis, 123 Ga. 272, 51 S.E. 280 (1905) ; see also Kennedy v. Thruway Serv. City, Inc., 133 Ga. App. 858, 861, 212 S.E.2d 492 (1975) (guarantor's liability arises up......
-
W. T. Rawleigh Co v. Salter
...324, 85 S. E. 126; Baggs v. Funderburke, 11 Ga. App. 173, 74 S. E. 937; Maril v. Boswell, 12 Ga. App. 41, 76 S. E. 773; Fields v. Willis, 123 Ga. 272, 51 S. E. 280; Manry v. Waxelbaum, 108 Ga. 14, 17, 33 S. E. 701." Taking up first the Manry Case, the ruling of the Supreme Court was not tha......
-
W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Salter
...143 Ga. 324, 85 S.E. 126; Baggs v. Funderburke, 11 Ga.App. 173, 74 S.E. 937; Maril v. Boswell, 12 Ga.App. 41, 76 S.E. 773; Fields v. Willis, 123 Ga. 272, 51 S.E. 280; Manry Waxelbaum, 108 Ga. 14, 17, 33 S.E. 701." Taking up first the Manry Case, the ruling of the Supreme Court was not that ......
-
Baggs v. Funderburke
...Fertilizer Co. v. Carmichael, 116 Ga. 762, 42 S. E. 1002; Schittler v. Deering Harvester Co., 3 Ga. App. 86, 59 S. E. 342; Fields v. Willis, 123 Ga. 272, 51 S. E. 280; Watters v. Hertz, 135 Ga. 814, 70 S. E. 343. It is contended, however, that, as the contract of Baggs recites that it was e......