Buy Here Pay Here Moultrie Ga
We try our best to give customers amazing products and amazing perks, and we're sure that our pals at the Moultrie Aaron's do their best to accomplish the same. Aaron's Club is an optional program that's unique to Aaron's. Customers can protect their lease for a monthly membership fee and get discounts at restaurants, retailers, wellness providers, and more. The Rent-A-Center benefits program is similar. It's called RAC Benefits Plus. Along with lease and product protection, RAC Benefits Plus presents members with plenty of money-saving opportunities for things you actually buy and need, like car repair and groceries! Then there are a few bonuses that we are super proud of here at your Moultrie Rent-A-Center. Let's start with the Rent-A-Center Worry-Free Guarantee. It puts the power of shopping in your hands, on your terms. This guarantee ensures the following: no credit history is needed to shop; you can own your product in the first 6 months and pay only the cash price; you can snag an early purchase discount; same-day delivery never costs you a dime; and we'll match any rent-to-own competitor's price (even Aaron's price), on the same in-stock item.** Rent-A-Center is the only rent-to-own store that offers the Worry-Free Guarantee.
buy here pay here moultrie ga
U.S. Auto Sales makes financing a car easy, simple and efficient. We work with all credit levels from good, to bad, and even no credit! Think of us as a stepping stone: buying a car can be difficult, especially from a franchise dealer with financial hoops you have to jump through just to see if you can get approved, but that's where we're flipping the script. We understand the vehicle you purchase from us probably won't be your last vehicle purchase, but sometimes people need help getting started and we're proud to be that starting point for thousands of people. We want to help you reach a position where one day you can buy a brand new car and not second guess whether or not you will be approved.
There are currently 20 Community Action Agencies in Georgia, which serve all 159 counties throughout the state. The Federal, State and local resources currently managed by Community Action Agencies in Georgia include such services as Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), emergency assistance, home weatherization and much more.
Q. Where should I lodge when visiting the expo?A. Visit our Lodging and Community Information to learn about Moultrie and the surrounding area. Chamber of Commerce websites and Facebook pages will direct you to overnight lodging and dining options.
Whether you find yourself in need of extra funds to fix your car, make home repairs, pay medical bills or buy back to school needs, we are here to help. With 2 locations to serve you, we arenever far away.
When you decide you are ready to get into a great Volkswagen, Toyota, Mazda, Honda, Nissan, we are here for you (or as far away as you want). Purchase online with our intuitive online tools, or let us do all the paper work for you. When you come to get the keys, we can have you out the door in as little as 15 minutes, but are glad to go through every detail of your car with you for as long as you like. Its all up to you.
Any question I had, Jordan was always there with the answer. She made the home buying process easier for me than I thought it would be. If you want reliability and honest, then Southwest Georgia Farm Credit is where you need to get your financing from.
We are first confronted with the question whether these instruments are a part of the pleading on demurrer under the Florida practice and the Conformity Statute (28 US CA 724). Common-law pleading obtains in Florida with statutory modifications. Though exhibits were commonly used in chancery practice, they were unknown to the common law. A writing relied on by the common-law pleader was alleged according to its legal effect, or, if that was doubtful, the pertinent provisions might be set forth verbatim. No reference to any document imported it into the pleading. An unsealed writing was merely evidence, and not to be produced until the trial; but if a deed were relied on, because of the estoppel incident to it, it had to be produced in court by the pleader, and profert made of it. The opposite party might then demand oyer of it, that is, to hear it read, and thereupon he might found a demurrer on it by reciting its *903 contents in his demurrer, and it was then treated as a part of the pleading of the party who produced it. Stephen, Pleading, p. 66, and ff. 437; 44 C. J., Pleading, 865, 870, 875. By the statutes of Florida profert and oyer of deeds is abolished. Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, 4292. But by section 4313 (2), "all bonds, notes, bills of exchange, covenants and accounts upon which suit may be brought, or a copy thereof, shall be filed with the declaration." The statute requires mere filing with, and not attachment as an exhibit to the declaration, and it has been consistently held by the Supreme Court of Florida not to result in making the paper a part of the declaration on demurrer. A contrary view of a similar statute was taken by the Supreme Court of the United States in City of Nauvoo v. Ritter, 97 U.S. 389, 24 L. Ed. 1050. Nevertheless, the practice of attaching exhibits to the declaration has been persisted in, and it is now held by the Florida court that an attached exhibit may by apt words in the declaration be made a part of it; and without such words, if it be so treated in the lower court the reviewing court will likewise so regard it. State v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 56 Fla. 670, 47 So. 986; National Surety Co. v. Williams, 74 Fla. 446, 77 So. 212; Shelton v. Eisemann, 75 Fla. 644, 79 So. 75; Reinschmidt v. Crosby, 98 Fla. 365, 123 So. 755, 124 So. 4. According to Strout Farm Agency v. Hollingsworth, 92 Fla. 673, 110 So. 267, 268, where the declaration refers to an instrument and adds "copy of which is hereto attached as Plaintiff's Exhibit A," and refers to another, adding "a copy of which is attached hereto as a part hereof, and marked Plaintiff's Exhibit B," the latter is to be considered a part of the declaration on demurrer but the former is not. By this test Exhibits A, B, and C in the suit at bar are not part of the declaration, but Exhibit D is. We think the distinction too refined and unreasonable to require its application in the federal courts under the Conformity Act. Where the plaintiff alleges that an instrument exists, and asserts that an attached paper is a copy of it, he must intend that his opponent and the court shall read it, and cannot complain that the assertion in his declaration is taken at its face value. In substance he has incorporated the paper into the declaration. If his opponent makes no objection to the impropriety in form according to common-law standards, but as in this case expressly founds his general demurrer in part upon the contents of the exhibits, and the court sustains the demurrer, neither plaintiff nor defendant is in any position to contend that the reviewing court should not treat the annexed exhibits as a part of the declaration. This we will accordingly do.
From the declaration and the exhibits it appears that in April, 1925, the owner of a lot of land in the city of Orlando, upon which was a building referred to as the Boardman Apartments, leased the same for ninety-nine years for a monthly rental of $300, with deposit of a reserve fund of $3,600 to secure rents and performance of other covenants. The lessee is by the terms of the lease to keep the premises in repair and insured against fire and storm, with loss payable to lessor, the insurance to be used in rebuilding. The lease is assignable only on lessor's written consent. It is forfeitable at lessor's option on numerous conditions, but nothing is to suspend or abate the rent or end the lease at the instance of the lessee, except that within a limited period he may buy the reversion for $50,000. The lease recites two outstanding mortgages of $113,000. The plaintiff bought this lease on the day it was executed for $500. On February 13, 1926, the mayor and city council took action looking to the purchase of the lease and reversion. On the same day the mayor signed the contract with plaintiff which is Exhibit D, whereby the plaintiff was to assign the lease to the city, and the city was to accept the assignment on March 1, 1926, and to pay for it $5,500 cash, $14,500 on March 1st, and $40,000 to be evidenced by four notes, each for $10,000, due in one, two, three, and four years, with interest at 8 per cent. from March 1, 1926, plus $3,600 in six notes due monthly for the reserve fund deposited under the lease. An abstract of title showing fee-simple record title in lessor was to be furnished by plaintiff, and lessor's written consent was to be obtained, and if the city bought the reversion plaintiff was to have a second mortgage for his balance. On March 5, 1926, lessor having consented in writing and the initial payments having been made, plaintiff signed an assignment of the lease to the city; but the instrument provided that it should be held in escrow until the four $10,000 notes and the six $600 notes of even date should be paid, with interest, and it added: "It is further expressly agreed between the parties hereto that in the event default is made in the payment of any of the said last named notes for a period of fifteen days after the same shall become due, that these presents shall then be null and void, and that all moneys theretofore paid hereunder by the said City of Orlando shall be retained by the *904 said C. H. Hoskins as liquidated damages and as agreed rental for the hereinbefore described premises." This instrument was signed also for the city by the mayor and clerk. It is not averred whether the six $600 notes were paid, or not, but that two of the $10,000 notes were paid, and the last two were not paid. Acts tending to show ratification by the city are also alleged, among them that the city collected the rents on the property. The questions principally argued are: Was the purchase within the power of the city? Was it lawfully authorized? Was the contract as made in accordance with the authority? Has ratification cured defects? 041b061a72