Case Name: Callaway v. Wynne
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1921-11-29
Citations: 27 Ga. App. 723
Docket Number: 12635
Parties: Callaway v. Wynne.
Judges: Jenkins, P. J., concurs. Stephens, J., dissents.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 723–727

Head Matter:
12635.
Callaway v. Wynne.
Decided November 29, 1921.
Complaint; from Wilkes- superior court — Judge Sliurley. May 28, 1921.
F. M. Wynne sued Sam Callaway for $945 and interest, and in bis original petition alleged: The defendant’s son Brantley Callaway was indebted to plaintiff in the year 1919 in tbe sum oí: $1,953, which included the amounts of specified notes and accounts, and in December, 1919, the plaintiff went to Brantley Callaway’s home, where he was working land of his father, and told them that these notes and accounts must be settled, and unless they were settled at once he would have to foreclose his papers and otherwise proceed by law to collect them; and Sam Callaway " told him and contracted, with him that if he would not foreclose his papers and proceed by law to collect them, and leave the auto and mule'[for which the plaintiff held notes] with his son, he would pay the said debts of his son;” and “with this assurance on the part of said Sam Callaway, who is solvent, his son, the said Brantley Callaway, being at that time in bad financial circumstances and worth very little more than the amount he was due plaintiff, he agreed to the same and left the property with [them], Sam Callaway agreeing to pay the said amounts;” 'that "after said last-mentioned date Brantley Calla-way disposed of practically all of his cotton and had a serious accident to his automobile, considerably damaging the same, and otherwise disposed of and dissipated his property and petitioner’s security for the debt;” that "after the said Brantley Callawayhad thus dissipated and ruined said property, the Sam Callaway, when petitioner next saw him, refused to settle the notes and accounts as he had agreed, and gave as his reason the fact that this property had been dissipated and damaged and destroyed;” that "at the time said Sam Callaway agreed to pay these notes and accounts he could have collected every dollar due him by the said Brantley Callaway, as he had not even disposed of the property nor damaged the same, but, the said defendant claiming it would ruin said Brantley Callaway and seriously affect them both, and at the said defendant’s instance and request and upon the agreement of the said Sam Callaway as above set out, defendant [ ?] consented to the same, the said Sam Callaway being amply solvent and able to pay the same.”

Opinion:
Hill, J.
1. "The provision of the statute of frauds which requires that the promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another must be in writing in order to bind the promisor does not include an original undertaking whereby a new promisor, for a valuable consideration, substitutes himself as the party who is to perform, and the original promisor is thereby released." Williams v. Garrison, 21 Ga. App. 44 (93 S. E. 510).
2. While the charge might have submitted to the jury the contentions of the defendant more completely and fully, there was no written request to charge; the instructions were sufficient, and the charge was not harmful for any the reason assigned.
3. There was evidence to support the verdict, and the court did not err in failing to grant a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Jenkins, P. J., concurs. Stephens, J., dissents.