Scott v. Leder, 64541
| Citation | 297 S.E.2d 103,164 Ga.App. 334 |
| Decision Date | 08 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 64541,64541 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. LEDER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
E. Graydon Shuford, Decatur, James D. Hollingsworth, Atlanta, for appellant.
John P. Morell, Conyers, for appellee.
In May 1980, appellee Leder sold a frame machine to appellant Scott and the parties executed a security agreement. It is undisputed that Scott later sold the machine to Carlos Sanders. Sanders and Leder picked up the frame machine from Scott's business establishment, where Mrs. Scott accepted Sanders' check for $700 and a release from further liability on the original purchase agreement from Leder. Scott subsequently filed suit against Leder for conversion of the machine, trespass and usury. It is the trial court's grant of summary judgment to appellee from which Scott now appeals.
1. Shaw v. Wheat St. Baptist Church, 141 Ga.App. 883, 884, 234 S.E.2d 711. All the affidavits which address the issue agree that, at the time Leder exercised control over the frame machine, it was at the behest of the new owner, Sanders, who had just paid Mrs. Scott for the machine. Since no conversion occurred, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to appellee on that issue.
2. When appellant alleged that personal property was taken without the consent of the owner, he stated a cause of action for trespass. Code Ann. § 105-1703. However, even appellant, in his affidavit, avers that he sold the machine to Sanders and, as was stated in Division 1, appellee did not aid in the machine's removal until Mrs. Scott had accepted Sanders' check and appellee's release. Thus, appellee's actions were with the consent of the owner, Sanders, and summary judgment on appellant's allegation of trespass was proper. Compare Lowery v. McTier, 99 Ga.App. 423(1), 108 S.E.2d 771; Vaughn v. Glenn, 44 Ga.App. 426(2), 161 S.E. 672.
3. A reading of appellant's contract with appellee and Code Ann. § 57-101 (Ga.L.1979, pp. 355-356) convinces us that summary judgment was also appropriate on appellant's usury charge. The purchase agreement established an interest rate of 8% per annum, well below the 10 1/2% per annum ceiling imposed by Code Ann. § 57-101.
4. Citing Code Ann. § 6-805(f) and (h), appellant also contends that the trial court erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pike v. State
...is not authorized by § 5-6-41(f) (Code Ann. § 6-805). Huckaby v. State, 128 Ga.App. 79, 195 S.E.2d 688 (1973); Scott v. Leder, 164 Ga.App. 334, 335(4), 297 S.E.2d 103 (1982). Thus, we are bound by the record of trial and cannot consider the state's proffered additional The record in this ca......
-
U.S. v. Sullivan
...as an element of their case in chief, and therefore appellants were entitled to judgment in their favor. See e.g., Scott v. Leder, 164 Ga.App. 334, 297 S.E.2d 103 (1982). The only evidence relating to the issue of consent came from Ms. Sullivan, who testified that she received permission to......
-
Maryland Cas. Ins. Co. v. Welchel, 72915
...own or any other's use...." ' [Cit.]" Mitzner v. Hyman, 175 Ga.App. 311, 312(1), 333 S.E.2d 182 (1985). See also Scott v. Leder, 164 Ga.App. 334, 335(1), 297 S.E.2d 103 (1982). In the instant case, there is no evidence that appellee assumed and exercised any right of ownership over the truc......
- Lowe's of Savannah, Inc. v. Zittrouer, 64514