Gibson v. Filter Queen Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 40678,No. 2,40678,2 |
| Citation | 136 S.E.2d 922,109 Ga.App. 650 |
| Parties | Shepard H. GIBSON et al. v. FILTER QUEEN COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Thad W. Gibson, Leesburg, for plaintiffs in error.
George R. Ellis, Americus, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Horn v. Preston, 217 Ga. 165, 121 S.E.2d 775.
2. If a debtor remits a sum of money to his creditor, though less than the amount actually due, with the understanding, either express or implied, that it is in satisfaction of his creditor's claim, and the latter accepts and retains it, accord and satisfaction of the demand results therefrom, and the balance, insofar as our law is concerned, may not thereafter be recovered by the creditor in an action instituted for that purpose; and this is true under our law whether the debtor's claim or demand be liquidated or unliquidated, disputed or undisputed. Rivers v. Cole Corp., 209 Ga. 406, 408, 73 S.E.2d 196. This is true whether the accord is executed by the payment of money, services, or property. Burgamy v. Holton, 165 Ga. 384(2), 141 S.E. 42. While in Burgamy it is stated, 165 Ga. p. 396, 141 S.E. p. 48: 'Of course, the return to the creditor of his own property would constitute no accord and satisfaction,' this statement does not apply to a situation where the creditor retains a security title only, since the executed agreement of the purchaser to surrender the property before he is obliged to do so under foreclosure or other legal process is in itself a sufficient consideration for the rescission of the contract. Mortagage Purchase and Sales Co. v. Williamson, 55 Ga.App. 92, 189 S.E. 293.
3. The defendant here purchased a vacuum cleaner from the plaintiff under a written conditional sale contract for a time price of $275.44 on which he made a down payment of $23.08. The contract was transferred to Union Discount Company with recourse. Within three or four days from the date of purchase the defendant, having received notice of the assignment from the discount company and over a month before the next payment was due, informed the manager that he did not want the vacuum cleaner,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moody v. Nides Finance Co.
...the one so directed. Norris v. Coffee, 206 Ga. 759, 58 S.E.2d 812.' Horn v. Preston, 217 Ga. 165, 121 S.E.2d 775; Gibson v. Filter Queen Co., 109 Ga.App. 650, 136 S.E.2d 922. 'In giving consideration to a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the court is concerned substantially w......
-
Studstill v. American Oil Co.
...and without indicating a refusal to accept it as an accord and satisfaction will constitute an acceptance. In Gibson v. Filter Queen Co., 109 Ga.App. 650, 136 S.E.2d 922 an accord and satisfaction was accomplished where an agreement between the vendee and vendor to rescind the contract was ......
-
Citizen and Southern Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 53749
...the agreement whereby plaintiff would not seek a deficiency upon the voluntary return of the automobile. See Gibson v. Filter Queen Co., 109 Ga.App. 650, 651(3), 136 S.E.2d 922; Moody v. Nides Finance Co., Inc., 115 Ga.App. 859(2), 860, 156 S.E.2d 310; Johnson v Commercial Credit Corp., 117......
-
Wood v. Yancey Bros. Co., 50569
...is entitled to the advantage of it.' Moody v. Nides Fin. Co., 115 Ga.App. 859(2), 156 S.E.2d 310, supra. Accord: Gibson v. Filter Queen Co., 109 Ga.App. 650, 136 S.E.2d 922. See Bradford v. Lindsey Chevrolet Co., 117 Ga.App. 781, 782(2), 161 S.E.2d 904, 906, and cases therein cited, which h......