South Georgia Trust Co. v. Neal
Decision Date | 18 December 1931 |
Docket Number | 8492. |
Citation | 161 S.E. 815,174 Ga. 24 |
Parties | SOUTH GEORGIA TRUST CO. v. NEAL. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus OPINION.
Submitting to jury question of construction of contract will not warrant reversal, where contract was properly construed with same result as if court construed it (Civ. Code 1910, § 4265).
Agreement to pay on or before July 14 held to give party entire day within which to make payment.
Error from Superior Court, Dougherty County; B. C. Gardner, Judge.
Suit by John Neal against the South Georgia Trust Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Agreement to pay on or before July 14 held to give party entire day within which to make payment.
The South Georgia Trust Company filed suit against John Neal, in the city court of Albany, in May, 1930, on certain notes, to secure which a deed to described property was executed, and following the filing of the suit on the notes, the property was advertised for sale under power embodied in the security deed. John Neal thereupon filed a petition to enjoin the suit on the notes and the sale of the property. Pending this suit counsel for both parties entered into an agreement in the form of a letter as follows:
The city court of Albany convened on the morning of Monday, July 14, 1930, and when the case of the South Georgia Trust Company v. John Neal was reached on the calendar, the attorney for John Neal, not having heard from him, struck his answer and consented for a verdict and judgment to be taken against him. This was shortly after court had convened. About an hour after the judgment had been taken, John Neal appeared, stated that he was ready to carry out his agreement as expressed in the letter set out above, and made a tender of the full amount agreed upon. The trust company refused to accept the amount, on the ground that the time for payment under the terms of the agreement had expired, and counsel for the defendant had agreed to the verdict and judgment.
Whereupon John Neal brought a petition setting up facts substantially as set out above; claiming that under the terms of the agreement he had all the time during the day of July 14 1930, within which to make payment; and praying that the trust company, its agents, officers, etc., be enjoined from further prosecution of the suit and the judgment, and from advertisement or any foreclosure on the loan deed, and be required to deliver up and cancel the notes and security deed on receipt of payment of $3,550 and costs of court, in accordance with the agreement; and for general relief. The trust company filed its answer, contending that the agreement entered into had expired at the time judgment was taken in thecity court of Albany, that counsel for petitioner consented to the taking of judgment, and that it was binding. At interlocutory hearing the judge ordered that the injunction prayed for be granted, but ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Brannon
...result would have been the same as reached by the jury in their verdict. Main v. Simmons, 2 Ga.App. 821 (59 SE 85); [cit.]." South Ga. Trust Co. v. Neal, 174 Ga. 24, hn. 2, 161 S.E. 815. The special verdict form employed in the case sub judice shows that the jury was instructed to make thre......
-
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Hart
...566, supra. Under the facts of the instant case we are unable to say that the error was harmless. Compare South Georgia Trust Co. v. Neal, 174 Ga. 24 (2), 161 S.E. 815 (1931). 4. Colonial Penn contends that the trial court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury on the law of negli......
-
Crocker v. Tam, 61264
...she failed or refused to consummate the transaction. Tam was not required to close until January 31, 1980. South Ga. Trust Co. v. Neal, 174 Ga. 24, 25, 161 S.E. 815 (1931). Since no marketable title could be conveyed by the seller at that time, Crocker is not entitled to a commission from T......