Fulton Building & Loan Ass'n v. Greenlea
| Decision Date | 22 January 1898 |
| Citation | 29 S.E. 932,103 Ga. 376 |
| Parties | FULTON BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. GREENLEA et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where one purchases property subject to an incumbrance, and desires to pay to his vendor the difference between the purchase price and the amount of the incumbrance, and applies to the holder of the incumbrance for information as to the amount then due him, and such holder, with a full knowledge of the purpose for which such information is asked, states an amount which he declares to be all that is then due him, and the purchaser, acting upon the faith of this statement, has a settlement with his vendor, and reserves the amount which the holder of the incumbrance declared to be due him, such holder is estopped from claiming, as against the property or the purchaser, any larger sum than that reserved by the purchaser at the time of the settlement with his vendor.
2. It follows from the principle above stated that if the holder of the incumbrance be a corporation, and the information as to the amount of the debt due be furnished by an officer, who at the time of giving the information is acting within the sphere of his appropriate duties, the corporation would be estopped, as against the person who acted on such information, from claiming any larger amount than the sum fixed by the officer in his statement.
3. The charges complained of were not erroneous for any reason assigned; the evidence authorized the verdict; and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Error from city court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.
Action by the Fulton Building & Loan Association against M. H Greenlea and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Simmons & Corrigan and King & Anderson, for plaintiff in error.
Glenn & Rountree, for defendants in error.
Bass obtained a loan from a building and loan association, and, to secure its payment, he conveyed to the association a city lot. This loan was to be paid in weekly installments, in the manner prescribed by the rules of the association. The association delivered to him a bond to reconvey the lot when he should pay the debt to reconvey the lot when he should pay the debt according to his contract. He sold the lot to Murphey, transferring to him the bond for reconveyance Murphey undertaking to pay the amount due the association. Murphey sold the lot to Mrs. Greenlea, receiving a part of the purchase money in cash, and taking her notes for the balance; the notes stipulating that, when paid, the amount or so much as was necessary, should go in liquidation of the indebtedness of Bass to the association. Subsequently, Mrs Greenlea agreed with Murphey that she would assume the indebtedness to the association, and pay him the balance of the purchase money represented by the notes. An amount agreed upon between them as sufficient to satisfy the debt due the association was reserved by Mrs. Greenlea; and the balance due on the notes, less a discount allowed by Murphey, was paid to him, and the notes surrendered to Mrs. Greenlea. Mrs. Greenlea made payments from time to time to the association, but their aggregate amount did not equal the sum reserved by her in the settlement with Murphey. The association brought suit against Bass and Mrs. Greenlea, alleging, in substance, the facts above stated; and further alleging that, while the association had not accepted Mrs. Greenlea as a member, she, by her conduct in paying installments, interest, and fines, had become a member of the association, and was therefore liable to pay the indebtedness of Bass to the association, in accordance with its constitution and by-laws; and praying for a judgment against Bass for the amount then due, according to the rules of the association, on the debt, and also for a like judgment against Mrs. Greenlea, and for a special judgment, against the lot in her possession. To this action Mrs. Greenlea pleaded that, at the time of the settlement with Murphey, it became necessary to determine what was the amount due the association by Bass, and that, to ascertain this amount, application was made to the secretary of the association, who was the officer in charge of its books and papers, and who was authorized to collect and settle with members and others indebted to the association, and that information was given by the secretary that the amount due was a stated sum; that sum could be paid in weekly installments, or in larger amounts, if desired, and that the sum stated was amount which would be necessary to discharge the indebtedness of Bass to the association; that the secretary well knew the purpose for which this information was asked, and that, upon the faith of this statement, she reserved in her settlement with Murphey the amount stated by the secretary, and no more; that it was in her power at that time to have reserved an amount sufficient to have paid the amount claimed in the suit as due by Bass, and her failure to reserve an amount larger than that actually reserved was due to the information furnished by the secretary when application was made to him in regard to the matter. Upon the trial, the evidence was conflicting as to what took place between the secretary of the association and the husband of Mrs. Greenlea, who was representing her at the time the arrangement was made in regard to the amount due the association. The evidence in behalf of Mrs. Greenlea tended to establish the truth of her plea; and the evidence in...
To continue reading
Request your trial