Arnold v. Bostwick Banking Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Arnold v. Bostwick Banking Co.

179 S.E.2d 780, 123 Ga. App. 189, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1153

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 13, 1971

Docket44972

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.E.2d 780 (Arnold v. Bostwick Banking Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnold v. Bostwick Banking Co., 179 S.E.2d 780, 123 Ga. App. 189, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1153 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, Judge.

The Supreme Court in Bostwick Banking Co. v. Arnold, 227 Ga. 18, having reversed the judgment of this court in Arnold v. Bostwick Banking Co., 121 Ga. App. 131 (173 SE2d 236), wherein it was held that a jury might determine from the evidence submitted on summary judgment that the plaintiff had made material alterations in filling in the balance of the notes, as he was required to do in comgjeting the blanks in the same which could avoid the instrument under the Uniform Commercial Code (Code Ann. §§ 109A-3 — 306, 109A-3— 407; Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 255, 259), our judgment reversing the trial court is vacated and set aside. The ruling made by the Supreme Court is made the judgment here. Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Evans, Judge.

The Supreme Court in Bostwick Banking Co. v. Arnold, 227 Ga. 18, having reversed the judgment of this court in Arnold v. Bostwick Banking Co., 121 Ga. App. 131 (173 SE2d 236), wherein it was held that a jury might determine from the evidence submitted on summary judgment that the plaintiff had made material alterations in filling in the balance of the notes, as he was required to do in comgjeting the blanks in the same which could avoid the instrument under the Uniform Commercial Code (Code Ann. §§ 109A-3 — 306, 109A-3— 407; Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 255, 259), our judgment reversing the trial court is vacated and set aside. The ruling made by the Supreme Court is made the judgment here. Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E.2d 780, 123 Ga. App. 189, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-bostwick-banking-co-gactapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack