Effect of New Promise by Partner

1. Law
2. Georgia Code
3. Civil Practice
4. Limitations of Actions
5. Revival
6. Effect of New Promise by Partner

After the dissolution of a partnership, a new promise by one partner shall revive or extend a partnership debt only as to the promisor and not as to his copartner or copartners.

(Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 233, § 26; Code 1863, § 2878; Code 1868, § 2886; Code 1873, § 2937; Code 1882, § 2937; Civil Code 1895, § 3791; Civil Code 1910, § 4387; Code 1933, § 3-905.)

Cross references.

- Effect of dissolution of partnership on existing liability of partners, § 14-8-36.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Petition in action against members of partnership dissolved by discharge in bankruptcy was demurrable (subject to motion to dismiss) when new promise was made by one partner only. Meinhard, Schaul & Co. v. Folsom Bros., 3 Ga. App. 251, 59 S.E. 830 (1907).

Amendment setting forth a new promise by an individual partner, in an action against a partnership, is not germane to original action. Ford v. Clark, 72 Ga. 760 (1884).

Cited in Stone v. Chamberlin & Bancroft, 20 Ga. 259 (1856); First Nat'l Bank v. Ellis, 68 Ga. 192 (1881); Louderback, Gilbert & Co. v. Lilly & Wood, 75 Ga. 855 (1885); First Nat'l Bank v. Cody, 93 Ga. 127, 19 S.E. 831 (1894); Stapler v. Anderson, 177 Ga. 434, 170 S.E. 498 (1933).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 334, 338, 363, 365.

19 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Partnership, § 133.

C.J.S.

- 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, §§ 305 et seq., 317 et seq.

ALR.

- Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute modifying or limiting effect of acknowledgment, payment, or other conditions to toll or extend the period of limitation with respect to mortgage foreclosure, 150 A.L.R. 134.

CHAPTER 4 DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS

Sec.

• 9-4-1. Purpose and construction of chapter.
• 9-4-2. Declaratory judgments authorized; force and effect.
• 9-4-3. Further relief; interlocutory extraordinary relief to preserve status quo.
• 9-4-4. Declaratory judgments involving fiduciaries.
• 9-4-5. Filing and service; time of trial; drawing of jury.
• 9-4-6. Submission of fact issues to jury.
• 9-4-7. Only parties affected; when municipality made party; when Attorney General served and heard.
• 9-4-8. When court may refuse declaratory judgment.
• 9-4-9. Costs.
• 9-4-10. Equity jurisdiction not impaired.
• 9-4-11. (Effective January 1, 2021) Combining proceedings in probate court.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in Williams v. J.M. High Co., 200 Ga. 230, 36 S.E.2d 667 (1946); Bowling v. Doyal, 206 Ga. 641, 58 S.E.2d 173 (1950); Lewis v. Lewis, 212 Ga. 168, 91 S.E.2d 336 (1956); Zeagler v. Willis, 212 Ga. 286, 92 S.E.2d 108 (1956); Cox v. Pearson, 212 Ga. 294, 92 S.E.2d 25 (1956); Montgomery v. Pierce, 212 Ga. 545, 93 S.E.2d 758 (1956); Wright v. Kelly, 212 Ga. 769, 95 S.E.2d 688 (1956); Kidd v. Mayor of Milledgeville, 213 Ga. 524, 100 S.E.2d 178 (1957); State v. Hospital Auth., 213 Ga. 894, 102 S.E.2d 543 (1958); Cooper Motor Lines v. B.C. Truck Lines, 215 Ga. 195, 109 S.E.2d 689 (1959); Choate v. Choate, 219 Ga. 250, 132 S.E.2d 671 (1963); Mock v. Darby, 109 Ga. App. 620, 137 S.E.2d 81 (1964); Scott v. Employees' Retirement Sys., 113 Ga. App. 295, 147 S.E.2d 821 (1966); Dinkler v. Jenkins, 223 Ga. 807, 158 S.E.2d 381 (1967); Maddox v. Fortson, 226 Ga. 71, 172 S.E.2d 595 (1970); Georgia Power Co. v. City of Macon, 228 Ga. 641, 187 S.E.2d 262 (1972); North Springs Shopping Ctr. v. Tustian, 229 Ga. 699, 194 S.E.2d 252 (1972); State Bd. of Dental Exmrs. v. Daniels, 137 Ga. App. 706, 224 S.E.2d 820 (1976).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 22A Am. Jur. 2d, Declaratory Judgments, § 4 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 26 C.J.S., Declaratory Judgments, § 5 et seq.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (U.L.A.) § 1 et seq.

ALR.

- Declaration of rights or declaratory judgments, 12 A.L.R. 52; 19 A.L.R. 1124; 50 A.L.R. 42; 68 A.L.R. 110; 87 A.L.R. 1205; 114 A.L.R. 1361; 142 A.L.R. 8.

Download our app to see the most-to-date content.