Natl. Acceptance Co. v. Fulton National Bank
NATIONAL ACCEPTANCE COMPANY v. FULTON NATIONAL BANK OF ATLANTA
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Hall, Judge.
This court in its previous opinion deplored the confusion, if not conflict, in judicial precedents deciding whether a contract in dispute was one of suretyship or guaranty. National Acceptance Co. v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 113 Ga. App. 517, 518 ( 148 SE2d 907 ). We relied upon the language of the Supreme Court in Greenwold Grift Co. v. Durham, 191 Ga. 586 ( 13 SE2d 346 ), wherein it stated: “An undertaking by which one induces the subsequent furnishing of goods to a third person . . . has been recognized as an independent contract of guaranty and not of suretyship. . . .” The Supreme Court now holds that in order to create a contract of guaranty there must be a “new, separate and independent consideration” flowing directly to the promisor.
Our judgment in this case having been reversed by the Supreme Court in Wolkin v. National Acceptance Co., 222 Ga. 487 ( 150 SE2d 831 ), we hereby vacate our judgment and enter another affirming the judgment of the trial court for the reasons stated by the Supreme Court in its opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.