Horkan v. Great American Indemnity Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Forester v. Young

    207 S.E.2d 9 (Ga. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    Mitchell v. Turner, 190 Ga. 485 (3) ( 9 S.E.2d 621). See also Horkan v. Great American Indemnity Co., 211 Ga. 690 (3) ( 88 S.E.2d 13); Williams v. Northern States Envelope Co., 210 Ga. 787 (1) ( 82 S.E.2d 830); Grant v. Grant, 202 Ga. 40 (3) ( 41 S.E.2d 534). A review of the transcript of the auditor's hearing shows that all his findings of fact are supported by some evidence.

  2. Marsh v. State Highway Department

    216 Ga. 54 (Ga. 1960)   Cited 2 times

    Luckie v. Max Wright, Inc., 90 Ga. App. 243, 246 ( 82 S.E.2d 660), holds: "Liens of laborers arise upon the completion of their contract of labor." A similar holding with reference to the time of paying for commodities purchased is in the case of Horkan v. Great American Indemnity Co., 211 Ga. 690, 691 (5) ( 88 S.E.2d 13) "A claim for the purchase price of building material, where the contract of sale has been fixed at a definite sum, is a liquidated demand; and, in the absence, as here, of proof of either contract or custom concerning payment, such purchase price is due when the material is delivered. . . Code § 57-110; Morris v. Root, 65 Ga. 686; McCarthy v. Nixon Grocery Co., 126 Ga. 762 ( 56 S.E. 72); Howard Supply Co. v. Bunn, 127 Ga. 663, 664 (4) ( 56 S.E. 757); Curtis v. College Park Lumber Co., 145 Ga. 601 (3) ( 89 S.E. 680); Rice-Stix Dry Goods Company v. Friedlander Brothers, 30 Ga. App. 312 ( 117 S.E. 762)."

  3. Gaster Lumber Company v. Browning

    219 Ga. App. 435 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    But in the interest of judicial economy, we find that notwithstanding the silence of OCGA § 44-14-360 et seq., regarding entitlement to prejudgment interest, "lien claimants are entitled to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of seven percent per annum on all liquidated claims." Turner, supra 202 Ga. App. at 726-727 (2), citing Horkan v. Great American Indemnity Co., 211 Ga. 690 ( 88 S.E.2d 13). Appellees nevertheless contend that they are insulated against the payment of prejudgment interest as the total lien cannot exceed what is allowed by OCGA § 44-14-360 et seq.

  4. Turner Constr. Co. v. Electrical Distributors, Inc.

    415 S.E.2d 325 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 9 times

    With regard to the merits of their appeal, appellants first contend that the materialman's lien laws, OCGA § 44-14-360 et seq., set forth appellee's exclusive remedies, and that since the lien statutes do not expressly provide for an award of prejudgment interest the trial court's ruling was in error. The question of appellee's entitlement to prejudgment interest is controlled adversely to appellants by the Supreme Court's decision in Horkan v. Great Am. Indem. Co., 211 Ga. 690-691 (5) ( 88 S.E.2d 13) (1955), in which the court held that lien claimants are entitled to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of seven percent per annum on all liquidated claims. Although the Horkan court did not address all of the arguments raised by appellants in the case sub judice, we are bound by that ruling, and any challenges to the rationale in Horkan may be addressed only by the Supreme Court.

  5. National Recording Corp. v. W. R. Grace Company

    145 S.E.2d 382 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)

    Code § 57-110; Morris v. Root, 65 Ga. 686; McCarthy v. Nixon Grocery Co., 126 Ga. 762 ( 56 S.E. 72); Howard Supply Co. v. Bunn, 127 Ga. 663, 664 (4) ( 56 S.E. 757); Curtis v. College Park Lumber Co., 145 Ga. 601 (3) ( 89 S.E. 680); Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. v. Friedlander Brothers, 30 Ga. App. 312 ( 117 S.E. 762)." Horkan v. Great American Indem. Co., 211 Ga. 690 (5) ( 88 S.E.2d 13). Those paragraphs of the second count of plaintiff's petition which sought interest for the unpaid balance from the date of purchase until the time of filing suit were not subject to the defendant's demurrers attacking such allegations as conclusions not supported by the facts alleged.

  6. Shaheen v. Kiker

    125 S.E.2d 541 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 10 times

    Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. v. Friedlander Bros., 30 Ga. App. 312 (3) ( 117 S.E. 762), aff'd. 158 Ga. 303 ( 122 S.E. 890); Horkan v. Great American Indem. Co., 211 Ga. 690 (5) ( 88 S.E.2d 13) and citations. The preparation and dating of a statement of account at some later date, either for the purpose of presenting for payment or for the filing of suit on the account would not change the rule or alter the running of interest.

  7. J. A. Jones Const. Co. v. Greenbriar Shopping Ctr.

    332 F. Supp. 1336 (N.D. Ga. 1971)   Cited 5 times

    The former should bear interest from the date it is ascertained or demanded; the latter should bear interest only from the time the dispute is resolved, even if it is at trial. Ga. Code § 20-1408; Ga. Code § 57-110; Horkan v. Great American Indemnity Co., 211 Ga. 690, 888 S.E.2d 13 (1955). In this instance, Certificate 23 bears some significance in that it constitutes a statement of account as of that date — November 7, 1966.