Bank of Commerce v. Barrett, Carter & Co.

38 Ga. 126
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 38 Ga. 126 (Bank of Commerce v. Barrett, Carter & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bank of Commerce v. Barrett, Carter & Co., 38 Ga. 126 (Ga. 1868).

Opinion

McCay, J.

This was a suit upon a promissory note. The note expressed upon its face, to be “ to pay to the order of Thos. G. Barrett, five hundred dollars, “ in consolidation of National Express and Transportation Company, value received.” On the trial, the Court charged the jury that the words on the face of the note were notice, to the party buying it, of the consideration, and sufficient to put him up on inquiry as to whether or not the consideration had failed.

[129]*129The bona fide purchaser of a note not due, who has no notice of a failure of consideration, cannot be defeated by snch a plea. Notice of the consideration alone, is nothing. Why should that affect him ? That the note was given for money, or a horse, er a house, is wholly immaterial. How can the knowledge that a note was given for a horse, he notice that the horse has proven worthless ? One can, perhaps, imagine a ease in which the mere knowledge of the consideration would involve also the knowledge of its failure— as when the failure was matter of universal notoriety, or was caused by the party charged, etc., but so far as appears, this is not such a cause.

Nor is the other point in the charge, that the knowledge of the consideration is sufficient to put the party up on inquiry, good law. Such a rule would largely restrict the negotiability of commercial paper, and has, so fax' as we know, no authority to support it.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Florence v. Commercial Bank
129 S.E. 560 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Turner Lumber Co. v. Henderson Lumber Co.
93 S.E. 301 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Bloodworth v. Woodward
93 S.E. 221 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Hardin v. Bank of Harlem
89 S.E. 613 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Park v. Zellars
77 S.E. 922 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)
Bank of Sampson v. Hatcher
66 S.E. 308 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Simmons v. Council
63 S.E. 238 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Hudson v. Best
30 S.E. 688 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Buchanan v. Wren
30 S.W. 1077 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1895)
New v. Walker
9 N.E. 386 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
Matthews v. Crosby
56 N.H. 21 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Ga. 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-commerce-v-barrett-carter-co-ga-1868.