Georgia Central Credit Union v. Weems, 60929
Citation | 157 Ga.App. 439,278 S.E.2d 88 |
Decision Date | 10 February 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 60929,60929 |
Parties | GEORGIA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION v. WEEMS. |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
William A. Wehunt, Atlanta, for appellant.
Frank L. Derrickson, Atlanta, for appellee.
The appellant-credit union filed suit alleging that appellee was indebted to it on a promissory note dated November 1, 1973. Appellee admitted executing the note but denied any indebtedness thereunder. Appellee also counterclaimed alleging that appellant received usurious interest on the note.
The case was tried before the court without a jury. At the conclusion of appellant's evidence, appellee moved for an involuntary dismissal on the ground that appellant failed to prove that it was a licensed credit union at the time of the execution of the note. After hearing arguments, the trial court granted the motion. Appellant appeals from the order of the trial court setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law and rendering judgment against it.
1. Enumerations of error 1 and 3 will be considered together since both are addressed to the trial court's finding and conclusion "(t)hat due to (appellant's) failure to allege or prove that it was a licensed credit union under (Chapter 41A-30 Ga.Code Ann. or former Chapter 25-1 Ga.Code Ann.) at the time the loan was entered into, it is barred from recovering anything from the (appellee)." Essentially, the issue raised by these two enumerations is whether, in an action by a credit union to recover under a promissory note, the holding of such credentials as were required under former Code Ann. § 25-101 et seq. (present Code Ann. § 41A-30 et seq.) at the time of the transaction is a condition precedent to recovery. If so, the issue becomes whether it is necessary that the credit union prove the existence of such credentials as part of its case.
Pratt v. Sloan, 41 Ga.App. 150, 153, 152 S.E. 275 (1929). In McLamb v. Phillips, 34 Ga.App. 210, 214, 129 S.E. 570 (1925), this court quoted with approval the following language: Accord Culverhouse v. Atlanta Assn. for Convalescent Aged Persons, 127 Ga.App. 574, 577, 194 S.E.2d 299 (1972).
Examining the act here involved, we believe that the objective of regulation and control of credit unions runs throughout its provisions. The former act, Ga.L.1925, pp. 169-177, was entitled "Credit Unions Regulated." At the time of the execution of the promissory note in the instant case i. e., November 1, 1973 credit unions were governed by former Ch. 25-1 Ga.Code Ann. While the former statute did not require the issuance of a permit per se, the bylaws had to be approved by the Superintendent of Banks under former Code Ann. § 25-103 "if he is satisfied that the proposed field of operation is favorable to the success of said corporation, and that the standing of the proposed incorporators is such as to give assurance that its affairs will be properly administered." Only then was the Secretary of State authorized to issue a certificate of incorporation, which under former Code Ann. § 25-107 was proof of the credit union's organization and right to do business in this state. It was a misdemeanor for any person, corporation, etc., except those organized under the provisions of Ch. 25-1 et seq., to use any name or title containing the words "credit union" (former Code Ann. § 25-9901).
The authorities discussed above illustrate the plain intention of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nayani v. Hassanali
...v. Dixon , 264 Ga. 797, 799-800 (2), 452 S.E.2d 484 (1994) (citations and punctuation omitted). Accord Ga. Cent. Credit Union v. Weems , 157 Ga. App. 439, 440 (1), 278 S.E.2d 88 (1981). See also OCGA § 13-8-1 ("A contract to do an ... illegal thing is void."). In other words, a contract tha......
-
San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc.
...agricultural products." O.C.G.A. § 2-9-1(5). 7. In an amount not to exceed $400.00. O.C.G.A. § 2-9-4. 8. See Ga. Cent. Credit Union v. Weems, 278 S.E.2d 88, 90 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981) (voiding credit union's contract where the provisions of the subject act showed the "plain intention of the leg......
-
McClesky v. VERICON RESOURCES, INC., A03A1066.
...McClesky does not address the distinction on appeal. For the sake of clarity, we refer to the agreement as a release. 5. 157 Ga.App. 439, 440(1), 278 S.E.2d 88 (1981). 6. See Barbazza v. Intl. Motor Sports Assn., 245 Ga.App. 790, 792(2), 538 S.E.2d 859 (2000); Hall v. Gardens Svcs., 174 Ga.......
-
Chase & Taylor, Inc. v. Milam, 71773
...The law will not enforce a contract which is illegal or against public policy. OCGA §§ 13-8-1; 13-8-2; Georgia Central Credit Union v. Weems, 157 Ga.App. 439, 440(1), 278 S.E.2d 88 (1981). Nor, as I would construe Ga.Code § 84-1404(a), can a Georgia-licensed broker claim a commission earned......