Vines v. Tift & Co.

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Bleckley, Chief Justice
• Citation: Vines v. Tift & Co., 7 S.E. 227, 79 Ga. 301 (Ga. 1887)
• Decision Date: 31 October 1887
• Parties: Vines. vs. Tift & Company.

79 Ga. 301

Vines. vs. Tift & Company.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

OCTOBER TERM, 1887.

Promissory Notes. Statute of Limitations. Interest and Usury. Before Judge Bower. Worth Superior Court. April Term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

Wright & Arnheim, for plaintiff in error.

D. H. Pope, for defendants.

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

In February, 1874, when there was no limitation of the rate of interest, all laws on the subject of usury having been repealed in the previous year, Vines executed to Tift & Co. a promissory note stipulating for interest at the rate of one and three quarters per cent. per month. On that note there was acredit. And it ran on with much of it unpaid, until April 27th, 1882, when another credit was entered, in these terms:

" 1882. April 27, by balance account rendered for 1876, credited under date of November 12, 1876, $48.01.

H. W. Vines."

On this note suit was brought by Tift & Co. against Vines, in 1883, the next year after the credit was entered; and that was met by a plea of the statute of limitations. Two questions are presented: (1) whether this entry under date of April 27th, 1882, is to be treated as a new promise dating then, or as a new promise dating November 22, 1876, at the time the entry says the account for 1876 is to be credited; (2) whether, if it be treated as a new promise of the date when entered, it revived the note as to principal only, or as to interest at the contract rate also, and what rate the principal would afterwards bear, whether the contract rate or the rate established by...