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
MILIKIN v. MURPHY et al.
20022.
HAWKINS, Justice.
Injunction. Wayne Superior Court. Before Judge Thomas. December 2, 1957.
1. Where, as here, a deed to secure debt contained what is commonly referred to as an "open end" or "dragnet" clause that "This deed shall further be security for any other debt, demand or claim of the Association [the grantee], against the first party [the grantor] whether now existing or hereafter incurred," a transferee or assignee of such security deed would not be authorized to tack on an indebtedness which was owing by a third person or corporation to the grantor in such deed, and which had been transferred by the grantor to the assignee of the deed, and to exercise the power of sale contained in the deed solely for the purpose of collecting that indebtedness, since such an indebtedness owing by a third person or corporation to the grantor would not be an obligation of the "first party" within the terms of the deed to secure debt. Citizens First Nat. Bank of Albany v. Jones, 161 Ga. 655 (3) (131 S. E. 529, 43 A. L. R. 1059); Americus Finance Co. v. Wilson, 189 Ga. 635 (7 S. E. 2d 259); Bank of Lafayette v. Giles, 208 Ga. 674 (69 S. E. 2d 78).
2. Since the assignee of such security deed was not entitled to assert the same as security for the indebtedness above referred to, the trial court did not err in overruling his general demurrer to a petition brought by the purchasers of a portion of the property described in such deed to restrain and enjoin the defendant from exercising the power of sale therein contained in order to satisfy such indebtedness, and in thereafter restraining the defendant from exercising the power of sale.
3. The decisions of the Court of Appeals in Vidalia Production Credit Assn. v. Durrence, 94 Ga. App. 368 (94 S. E. 2d 609), and of this court in Rose City Foods v. Bank of Thomas County, 207 Ga. 477 (62 S. E. 2d 145), relied upon by the plaintiff in error, are not in conflict with what is here ruled, for in each of those cases the debt sought to be tacked on was that of the maker of the security instruments there involved, and not the debt of a third person.
Jack W. Ballenger, contra.
Hubert H. Howard, for plaintiff in error.
SUBMITTED APRIL 14, 1958 -- DECIDED MAY 7, 1958.
Saturday May 23 01:22 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