Pers. Finance Co. Of Macon v. Whiting

• Decision Date: 22 December 1933
• Docket Number: No. 23224.,23224.
• Citation: 172 S.E. 111,48 Ga.App. 154
• Parties: PERSONAL FINANCE CO. OF MACON. v. WHITING.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

48 Ga.App. 154

172 S.E. 111

172 S.E. 111

PERSONAL FINANCE CO. OF MACON.

v.WHITING.

No. 23224.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1.

Dec. 22, 1933.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; Louis L. Brown, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Jonnie Whiting against the Personal Finance Company of Macon. To review a judgment overruling its demurrer to the petition, defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Statement of facts by BROYLES, Chief Judge.

Mrs. Jonnie Whiting brought suit against the Personal Finance Company of Macon. The general demurrer to the amended petition was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The petition as amended (formal parts omitted) was as follows: "1. That said defendant is a corporation, engaged in the business of lending money at the rate of 3¹/₂% per month, and has an office, agent and place of business in said State and county.

2. That said defendant has injured and damaged your petitioner in the sum of $15000.00 by reason of the facts hereinafter set forth.

3. That for some two or three years prior to December 16th, 1931, George Whiting, the husband of your petitioner has been borrowing" money from the defendant. That in order to get said loans from the defendant company, the defendant demanded that your petitioner endorse the notes and other loan papers prepared by the defendant company for the signature of the said George Whiting and your petitioner. That said endorsements were in writing upon the papers prepared by the defendant, and said papers were left in the possession of the defendant, and said papers are still in the possession of the defendant, unless the defendant has destroyed them. Said papers were never delivered to your petitioner at any time after she signed them. In addition to said endorsements, the said defendant company required your petitioner to give a bill of sale to secure debt against her household goods and effects as additional security for the loans to George Whiting, and said bills of sale to secure debt are still in the custody of said defendant company. Your petitioner shows that she has never had the original nor a copy of said papers referred to in this paragraph and can not obtain same, but the defendant company has said papers. 4. That on or about December 16th, 1931, the said defendant did lend a sum of money to said George Whiting, and as security for said loan required your petitioner to sign papers evidencing the said indebtedness, and to give as security therefor a bill of sale on the household furniture and effects of your petitioner contrary to the laws of Georgia. The papers, which the defendant required your petitioner to sign in connection with the loan by the defendant to said George Whiting, were the usual application for loan, note representing loan, and bill of sale to secure debt, which the defendant company was then using and now continues to use in such cases. That said papers were retained by the defendant after your petitioner signed same, and the defendant still has said papers in its possession, and your petitioner is unable to furnish a copy of said papers as she has never had a copy of same and has no way of securing same except from the defendant. 5. That your petitioner is the wife of George Whiting, which fact was well known to the defendant at the time of the loans referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, and the papers signed by the petitioner in favor of the defendant as referred to in said paragraphs 3 and 4 above so stated that your petitioner was the wife of George Whiting. 6. Your petitioner is advised and believes that on or about December 16, 1931, the said George Whiting received $40.00 in cash from the said defendant and settled up with said defendant a pre-existing debt for the sum of approximately $260.00. 7. That the said defendant, in order to evade the laws of the State of Georgia which, prohibits a married woman giving security for the debt of her husband, did have your petitioner sign applications and loan papers, being the same loan papers and applications referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, to the effect that your petitioner was borrowing money from said defendant with the endorsement of her husband, George Whiting, when as a matter of fact it was well known to the defendant, its agents and employees, that your petitioner was not borrowing any money from the defendant, but was standing security for her said husband, George Whiting, and was pledging her individual property for the payment of her husband's debts. 8. The defendant company did send its agent and employee, Mr. Odom, to the residence of your petitioner at 123 Log Cabin Drive, in Bibb County, Georgia, on the 14th day of June, 1932, in the afternoon, to collect said debt, and for the purpose of demanding payment of said debt from your petitioner, and said Mr. Odom, agent and employee of said defendant, did, contrary to the wishes and instructions of your petitioner, force his way into said house, and into the presence of your petitioner, and remained in the home of your petitioner for a long period of time, to wit, nearly one hour. 9. Your petitioner in April, 1932, was operated upon for a very serious ailment from which your petitioner did not recover, and has not yet recovered, and from which your petitioner was then ill and nervous. Your petitioner did then and there notify said Odom that she was too ill and nervous to discuss the matter with him, and told him to see her husband about said transaction, but said Odom refused to leave the home of your petitioner, and did proceed to threaten your petitioner by stating that his company was going to take the property of your petitioner to pay her husband's debts, and continued to nag at and worry your petitioner to such an extent that she had a complete nervous break-down, and from which she became very ill, and is still ill and under the care of a physician. 10. That said defendant company well knew that she was not liable on the indebtedness of her husband, and notwithstanding said information the said Odom insisted upon her paying same, and in default whereof, they would proceed forcibly to take her property. 11. That said Odom, agent and employee of the defendant company, did on the following day, to wit, June loth, 1932, go back to the home of your petitioner to make further threats, but was ordered away from the place by your petitioner's husband. 12. That your petitioner owes the defendant nothing, and has never owed the defendant any money, and the defendant knows petitioner owes defendant nothing, but that...