lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
THE CITIZENS & SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK v. CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
41385.
Action on account. Fulton Civil Court. Before Judge Williams.
NICHOLS, Presiding Judge.
A letter written by a creditor to his debtor stating that he "has assigned" the chose in action to a third party is a sufficient assignment in writing to authorize an action by the third party against the debtor.
The Citizens & Southern National Bank brought an action in the Civil Court of Fulton County to recover, according to the allegations of the petition as originally filed, upon an account due Horace H. Mozley doing business as Briarcliff Plumbing & Heating Company by the defendant and assigned to the plaintiff. The petition had attached as an exhibit a letter written by Horace H. Mozley to the defendant and which contained the following: "Re: Work completed at Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac Plant. Gentlemen: The work completed and billed to you in the amount of $13,809.00 has been assigned to the Citizens and Southern National Bank. Please issue your checks payable to them and us when remitting." This letter contained a notation that it was: "Accepted by: Capital Construction Company, Guy H. Miles" and dated 8/31/64.
The defendant demurred to the plaintiff's petition and after the trial court sustained one ground of demurrer, overruled others and allowed time for amendment, the petition was amended by striking all except the formal parts and by alleging that Horace H. Mozley had directed, by the instrument shown above, the defendant to issue checks due for such work, that the defendant accepted said instrument as shown by such instrument, that after such written acceptance by the defendant the instrument was delivered to the plaintiff and accepted by the plaintiff who in reliance upon such instrument, and without any notice of any defenses or counter claims loaned Horace H. Mozley a sum of money in excess of the amount due under such contract and "That said loans were made to Horace H. Mozley d/b/a Briarcliff Plumbing & Heating Co. upon the reliance of the written acceptance of Exhibit 'A' by defendant and upon the oral contract of said Horace H. Mozley d/b/a Briarcliff Plumbing & Heating Co., with plaintiff to endorse the checks to be made jointly to him and plaintiff by the defendant, Capital Construction Company" and that the defendant has failed and refused to comply with provisions of such exhibit. The defendant demurred to the petition as amended and the trial court sustained the defendant's general demurrer and dismissed the petition. Error is now assigned on such final judgment adverse to the plaintiff.
Under Code Ann. 109A-9--302 (1) (e), the assignment of an account not embracing a loan or in connection with other assignments to the same assignee, a significant part of the outstanding accounts or contract rights of the assignor does not have to be perfected by the filing of a financing statement under the Uniform Commercial Code, and under Code Ann. 109A-9--203 the security agreement must be in writing but not in any particular form. The writing relied upon in the instant case stated that the "account" (right to payment for goods sold or services rendered, Code Ann. 109A-9--106), had been assigned to the plaintiff, the defendant acknowledged such assignment and the writing was delivered to the plaintiff who on the strength thereof loaned money to the debtor (the defendant's creditor).
Under the decision of the Supreme Court in Southern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Durdin, 132 Ga. 495 (64 SE 264, 131 ASR 210), the language used in the letter addressed to the defendant and "accepted" by it was sufficient to constitute an assignment of the indebtedness so as to create a security interest under the terms of the Uniform Commercial Code and there had been value given (the loan to the defendant's creditor) so as to bring it under the terms of Code Ann. 109A-9--204 before the present action was filed.
As between the plaintiff and the defendant the petition set forth a cause of action and the trial court erred in sustaining the defendant's general demurrer and dismissing the petition.
Judgment reversed. Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.
Tindall & Tindall, Joseph D. Tindall, Jr., contra.
Claude Hambrick, for plaintiff in error.
ARGUED JULY 7, 1965 -- DECIDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1965.
Friday May 22 21:19 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com