From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ellis v. Chem-Tech Finishers, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Oct 25, 1976
230 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)

Opinion

52706.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 22, 1976.

DECIDED OCTOBER 25, 1976.

Action on surety contract. Murray Superior Court. Before Judge Temples.

Walter H. Bolling, for appellant.

McCamy, Minor, Phillips Tuggle, Joseph T. Tuggle, Jr., for appellee.


Plaintiff sued the defendant on a surety contract which obligated defendant to pay for the purchase of goods sold to a third party by plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and a judgment was entered for $39,436.15, the amount claimed in the complaint. On appeal the defendant, while admitting liability to plaintiff, asserts only that the amount of the judgment was erroneous. The pertinent facts are not in dispute. The contract was executed on October 28, 1975. Prior to this date plaintiff had extended credit to the third party in the amount of $32,953.18 and $6,482.92 after the execution of the contract. Held:

Defendant argues that he is only liable for the lesser amount. He contends that under the terms of the contract defendant was only liable for plaintiff's extension of credit after October 28, 1975. The agreement provided in part that "This contract shall operate for the benefit of the corporation named above [plaintiff] .... and shall cover all liabilities of said customer [third party] in connection with all contracts made with you, whether heretofore made or may hereafter be made..." This language is clear and unmistakable and specifically includes the prior liability of the third party as well as the liability which defendant admits.

It is also contended that as to the credit extended prior to the execution of the contract, no consideration flowed to defendant. Past consideration will not support a contract of suretyship. Musgrove v. D. E. Luther Pub. Co., 5 Ga. App. 279 ( 63 S.E. 52). But if the contract expressly guarantees past and future advances, in consideration of future advances to be made, it is sufficient as to the whole. Hargroves v. Cooke, 15 Ga. 321. The contract here falls within this rule.

Judgment affirmed. Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 22, 1976 — DECIDED OCTOBER 25, 1976.


Summaries of

Ellis v. Chem-Tech Finishers, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Oct 25, 1976
230 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Case details for

Ellis v. Chem-Tech Finishers, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ELLIS v. CHEM-TECH FINISHERS, INC

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Oct 25, 1976

Citations

230 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
230 S.E.2d 340

Citing Cases

United Rentals Systems v. Safeco Ins. Co.

See Jackson v. First Bank of Clayton County, 150 Ga. App. 182, 185-186 ( 256 S.E.2d 923). For a discussion of…

Jackson v. First Bank

Id. In the same manner, neither will past consideration support a contract of suretyship. Ellis v. Chem-Tech…