# Escambia Chemical Corp. v. Rocker

> Court of Appeals of Georgia · September 10, 1971 · 124 Ga. App. 434

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586567

## Case

- **Full name:** ESCAMBIA CHEMICAL CORPORATION v. ROCKER Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Georgia
- **Decided:** September 10, 1971
- **Citations:** 124 Ga. App. 434; 184 S.E.2d 31; 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 955
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Whitman
- **Judges:** Eberhardt, Bell, Jordan, Hall, Pannell, Deen, Quillian, Evans, Whitman
- **Cited by:** 31 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586567

## Opinion text

Whitman, Judge,
concurring specially. I concur in the opinion in this case, affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment in the court below. I regard the instrument of guaranty, characterized as such, as a contract of suretyship. I do not regard the opinion as dealing with or ruling on any question of the right of defendant J. F. Hattaway to contend or plead specifically by way of defense any question as to the construction or coverage of the contract or that the contract, if there is such a contract, has relation only to the alleged indebtedness of defendant Edwin D. Rocker to plaintiff Escambia Chemical Corporation. The written *442 "Guaranty of Credit” appears thereby to have been executed "in order to induce it (plaintiff) to extend credit to or otherwise to become the creditor of Edwin D. Rocker, d/b/a J. F. Hattaway Company, a corporation,” etc. The answer of Hattaway admitted jurisdiction but denied all other allegations of the complaint. The complaint alleged indebtedness by the defendants Rocker and Hattaway Gin & Warehouse, Inc., and that Hattaway was indebted to plaintiff by virtue of the contract of guaranty guaranteeing the debt of the other named defendants. The answer did not specifically raise any question as to the construction or coverage of the contract or that the contract, if there is such a contract, relates solely to an indebtnness of the defendant Rocker, this allegation appearing only in the motion to set aside and revise the default judgment against Rocker and Hattaway Gin & Warehouse, Inc. In the default judgment the lower court expressly reserved the question of the liability of Hattaway to be determined by further proceedings in the- case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586567. Public record. Not legal advice.