Rutledge v. Temple Banking Co.

• Decision Date: 27 February 1924
• Docket Number: 14494.
• Citation: 121 S.E. 707,31 Ga.App. 686
• Parties: RUTLEDGE v. TEMPLE BANKING CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

121 S.E. 707

31 Ga.App. 686

RUTLEDGE v. TEMPLE BANKING CO.

No. 14494.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

February 27, 1924

Syllabus by the Court.

A promise made by the maker of a promissory note to the holder, after the maturity of the note, to pay a part of the accrued indebtedness, is not a good consideration for an agreement by the holder to extend the time of payment, and therefore does not operate to release the surety.

The application by the holder of the note to other indebtedness due him by the maker of a payment made by the maker on the note does not operate to increase the existing liability of the surety, and therefore dees not release the surety.

This being a suit by the holder of the note against the surety, and it appearing from the facts pleaded by the surety that he is not indebted to the plaintiff in the full amount sued for by reason of the principal debtor having reduced the amount of the indebtedness by a payment of a certain sum, the plea to this extent set up a good defense, and was improperly stricken on demurrer.

The striking of the plea was error affecting the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

Error from City Court of Carrollton; Leon Hood, Judge.

Action by the Temple Banking Company against W. O. Rutledge. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Beall & Smith, of Carrollton, for plaintiff in error.

Smith & Millican, of Carrollton, for defendant in error.

STEPHENS, J.

Judgment reversed.

JENKINS, P.J., and BELL, J., concur.