Court Opinion

ID: 9851927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:21:45.702022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:19.597052
License: Public Domain

Felton, Justice,
dissenting from the second division of the opinion and from the judgment affirming the trial court’s judgment against J. W. Dickson.
I concur in the first division of the opinion and dissent from the second division and the affirmance of the judgment against J. W. Dickson.
The rulings made in the first division of the opinion demand a reversal of the judgment against J. W. Dickson. The facts shown in the first division show that the transaction relative to the $9,000 note to the bank was contrary to public policy and that for that reason it was unenforceable. All parties to that contract were charged with knowledge that D. A. D., Inc., could not pledge its credit or assets to secure a note signed or indorsed by the other parties and that the contract was, therefore, unenforceable. The security transferred as collateral by D. A. D., Inc., as accommodation and without any benefit to it was against public policy and was unenforceable. Since that is true, the fact that Dickson misrepresented that the collateral security deed transferred as security for the $9,000 loan had not been foreclosed renders it indisputable that such a misrepresentation could not have been the cause of the bank’s loss for the simple reason that the bank would have lost the benefit of the transferred loan deed even if it had not been foreclosed. This is one reason why the judgment *119against Dickson should be reversed. The second reason is that every party to this case was a party to a contract against public policy and void, except D. A. D., Inc. In such a case the law will not lend its aid to give relief to any guilty party, but will leave them where it finds them. Adams v. Barrett, 5 Ga. 404 (4); Code §§ 20-501 and 20-504. The third reason is that Dickson endeavored to withdraw from the transaction at a time when the bank could have placed all parties in the position occupied before the transaction began, and the bank refused to permit him to do so, and this in spite of the fact that Dickson had not complied with two conditions which the bank had stipulated as prerequisites for the making of the loan, (1) a resolution from the board of directors of D. A. D., Inc., approving the loan and transfer of collateral, and (2), additional security to that by D. A. D., Inc.