Case Name: GRAY v. QUALITY FINANCE COMPANY (two cases)
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1974-02-04
Citations: 130 Ga. App. 762
Docket Number: 48609, 48610
Parties: GRAY v. QUALITY FINANCE COMPANY (two cases).
Judges: Bell, C. J., Hall, P. J., Pannell, Evans, Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur. Eberhardt, P. J., and Deen, J., dissent.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 130
Pages: 762–766

Head Matter:
48609, 48610.
GRAY v. QUALITY FINANCE COMPANY (two cases).

Opinion:
Quillian, Judge.
Although there are two appeals in this case, only one issue is involved and we rule on the case as if it were singular and not plural.
Quality Finance Company filed its complaint against Amy L. Gray in the Civil Court of Fulton County. The complaint alleged that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of $882.51 as evidenced by a promissory note. The defendant filed an answer denying her indebtedness to the plaintiff and setting out that the contract attached to the complaint violated the Georgia Industrial Loan Act. Code Ann. § 25-315 (Ga. L. 1955, pp. 431, 440; 1964, pp. 288, 291). The case came on for trial without the intervention of a jury and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a new trial and subsequently amended the motion. Upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, the defendant appealed to this court. Held:
The instrument on which the plaintiff relies recites "date of loan 11/14/69," "final instalment date 11/15/71." The defendant contends that this loan violated the Georgia Industrial Loan Act based on the holding in Abrams v. Commercial Credit Plan, 128 Ga. App. 520 (197 SE2d 384). In the Abrams case the instrument recited "date of Loan — 4/20/71." The last of the payments was due on May 4,1973. The court pointed out that this was "2 years and 14 days after the date the loan was made. " Code Ann. § 25-315 (Ga. L. 1955, pp. 431, 440; 1964, pp. 288, 291) provides that licensees under the Industrial Loan Act may loan any sum of money not exceeding $2,500 "for a period of 2 years or less." Thus, this court held that the contract in Abrams violated the provision and that under Code Ann. § 25-9903 (Ga. L. 1955, pp. 431, 444), the contract was null and void.
The Abrams case is controlling here. The defendant argues the fact that the 14th of December 1971 was Sunday and thus it was permissible for the contract to be extended to the 15th of December, the Monday following such Sunday under provisions of Code Ann. § 102-102 (8) (Ga. L. 1958, pp. 388, 389; 1967, pp. 579, 580).
It has long been the rule in this state that Code Ann. § 102-102 (8) applies only where days are to be counted and that where months and years are to be considered .the rule is not applicable. Davis v. Hill, 113 Ga. App. 280 (2) (147 SE2d 868); Veal v. Paulk, 121 Ga. App. 575, 577 (174 SE2d 465); Curtis v. College Park Lumber Co., 145 Ga. 601, 602 (89 SE 680); Texas Co. v. Davis, 157 Ga. 538, 540 (122 SE 62); Thomas v. Couch, 171 Ga. 602 (156 SE 206). When a limitation is imposed in terms of years the expiration takes place at the end of a yearly period without giving additional consideration to when the last day falls.
It should further be pointed out that the day of grace under Code Ann. § 102-102 (8) is given to the party upon whom the duty is imposed, not as in this case to the other party. Thus, while the defendant might or might not have an additional day to make final payment, this would in no way aid the plaintiff in the case sub judice. In short, the statute provides that the contract must be for a loan not in excess of 2 years. Any violation of this requirement would result in the loan contract being null and void.
Argued September 12, 1973
Decided February 4, 1974.
Steven Gottlieb, for appellant.
Harris Bullock, for appellee.
The burden was upon the plaintiff to establish that he came within the terms of the Georgia Industrial Loan Act. Jobson v. Masters, 32 Ga. App. 60 (2) (122 SE 724); Southland Loan &c. Co. v. Brown, 53 Ga. App. 786 (187 SE 131). Since the face of the contract here showed a non-compliance, the plaintiff could not recover.
Judgment reversed.
Bell, C. J., Hall, P. J., Pannell, Evans, Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur. Eberhardt, P. J., and Deen, J., dissent.