Poole v. Trimble

• Decision Date: 10 January 1898
• Citation: 102 Ga. 773,29 S.E. 871
• Parties: POOLE . v. TRIMBLE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

29 S.E. 871

102 Ga. 773

POOLE .

v.TRIMBLE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 10, 1898.

Limitations—Loan-Demand.

Where no time is agreed upon between the parties as to when a loan made shall mature, and demand for payment is thereafter made by the lender, a suit upon open account filed more than four years after such demand is barred by the statute of limitations.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Clayton county; John S. Candler, Judge.

Action by Maggie Poole against Green Trimble. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

The following is the official report: Maggie Poole brought suit in a justice's court against Trimble for a balance alleged to be due on a loan made to the defendant by her on December 8, 1890. The suit was brought October 28, 1896. A plea of the statute of limitations was filed; and upon a trial of the case in the superior court, to which it had been taken by appeal, the judge granted a nonsuit upon the ground that it was barred by the statute. Plaintiff excepted.

The evidence was, In substance, as follows: Plaintiff testified that she lent the money to the defendant for the purpose of enabling him to make a payment upon a piece of land. No special time was fixed for repayment, but thedefendant promised that whenever he should finish paying for the land he would give her a note for the money and turn over his deeds as security. He promised to pay her 8 per cent, per annum for the use of the money. In March, 1891, she wrote to the defendant that she was needing some money, and he let her have 75 cents. In November of the same year he paid her $10; in October, 1892, $15; in October, 1893, $4; and in November, 1894, $5. In the fall of 1894 he brought her some butter and eggs of the value of $4. She offered to pay for them, but he told her to let it go on what he owed her. All these sums were credited on the loan. At that time, or at some other time during the fall of 1894, the defendant told her he had finished paying for his land, but he gave her no note for the money. He said his crop had turned out badly, and he would pay up his debt the next fall. She agreed that the debt might run till the next fall. In 1895 she demanded her money in the fall of the year, but he did not pay it, and has not yet done so.

Alexander & Lambdin, for plaintiff In error.

Watterson & Kinsey, for defendant In error.

SIMMONS, C. J. We think that the court below did not err in granting a nonsuit When the loan was made, no time for its repayment was agreed upon by the parties, but in March, 1891, plaintiff wrote a letter which was in effect a demand, and which, therefore, fixed the maturity of the debt. Where a debt Is not at once due, and no time is specified for its payment, it is due and payable in a reasonable time or upon demand subsequently made. The cases of Chandler v....