Court Opinion

ID: 9624726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:15:13.821916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:53.672679
License: Public Domain

Bell, Chief Judge.
This is a suit to recover the balance on a check issued by the defendant. The lower court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Held:
It is undisputed that defendant leased from plaintiff landlord storeroom space in the latter’s shopping center. Candler and Griffith, a partnership and managers of the shopping center, pursuant to defendant’s order, installed a heating and air conditioning unit in the leasehold premises. In payment for the heating and air conditioning unit and the monthly rental due, the defendant issued a check in the amount of $2,730 payable to Candler *134and Griffith which was negotiated by blank endorsement to plaintiff who in turn endorsed it for deposit to its bank. The check was presented for payment to the drawee bank and refused because of insufficient funds. After notice of dishonor the defendant paid the monthly rental of $530 but refused to pay the $2,200 balance which represented the cost of the heating and air conditioning unit. By answer and a supporting affidavit the defendant asserted that payment for the heating and air conditioning unit was made under a mistake of fact; that plaintiff was required to pay for this item under the terms of the lease contract.
As there is no prima facie showing that plaintiff is a holder in due course, plaintiff is therefore only a holder of the check. "The holder of an instrument whether or not he is the owner may . . . enforce payment in his own name.” Code Ann. § 109A-3 — 301. Not being a holder in due course the plaintiff took this instrument subject to the defenses set forth in Code Ann. § 109A-3 — 306. The drawer of a check is liable to the holder unless he has a defense which is good' against the holder. Tidwell v. Bank of Tifton, 115 Ga. App. 555, 556 (155 SE2d 451). A copy of the lease is included in the record. Section III of Exhibit C of the lease entitled "Landlord’s Work” provides in part that "Landlord will incorporate in the construction of the Demised Premises at Landlord’s cost and expense the following items: . . .” and then enumerates thirteen separate items. A heating and air conditioning unit is not one of the listed items. Section IV of Exhibit C is entitled: "Tenant’s Work” and provides: "Any work beyond or in addition to that set forth in Section III of this Exhibit C shall be considered as Tenant’s Work and cost and expense of same shall be paid for by the tenant.” The only mention of heating and air conditioning found anywhere in the lease contract are provisions that state in general terms the minimum and maximum temperatures the heating and air conditioning system must meet and that the tenant is obligated to maintain in *135good order and repair at its own expense the heating and air conditioning systems as well as other specified equipment and fixtures. While it is true that any ambiguity or doubtful provisions in a lease are to be resolved against the lessor (Farm Supply Co. of Albany v. Cook, 116 Ga. App. 814 (159 SE2d 128)), the lease contract must be construed as a whole by the court and not torn apart and construed in pieces. Sachs v. Jones, 83 Ga. App. 441, 444 (63 SE2d 685). The contract when considered as a whole and even in a light most favorable to the defendant tenant does not contain any provision that plaintiff was obligated to pay for the installation of the heating and air conditioning system. Consequently, as per the terms of the provision on tenant’s work, the cost of the system was the obligation of the tenant. The provisions of the lease expressly mentioning the heating and air conditioning system cannot be reasonably construed or interpreted to bring about the result desired by defendant. The obligation of defendant to maintain the system in good order and repair and to maintain certain temperatures cannot be construed as placing the cost of installation upon the plaintiff. Under the facts, the defendant has no defense that would be good against the plaintiff holder. The trial court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Argued September 7, 1971
Decided December 2, 1971.
Preston L. Holland, for appellant.
Stokes, Boyd & Shapiro, J. Ben Shapiro, Jr., for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell and Deen, JJ., concur specially.