Bank of Cumming v. Mason

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bank of Cumming v. Mason

95 S.E. 307, 22 Ga. App. 33, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 123

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 13, 1918

Docket9321

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 307 (Bank of Cumming v. Mason) 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

Bank of Cumming v. Mason, 95 S.E. 307, 22 Ga. App. 33, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 123 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Harweii,, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It is undisputed that the note sued on in this case was received by the plaintiff before its maturity, as collateral security for a debt due by the payees, and that this debt was not paid. It further appeared that the payment made by the defendant to Lummus, payee of the note, was made before maturity, and it was not shown that the payee had possession of or was the owner of the note when the payment was made. Hnder the facts appearing in the record, the trial judge erred in overruling the certiorari. Paris v. Moe, [35]*3560 Ga. 90; Haug v. Riley, 101 Ga. 386 (29 S. E. 44, 40 L. R. A. 344); McDonald v. Horton, 20 Ga. App. 489 (93 S. E. 110).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. <

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

Harweii,, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It is undisputed that the note sued on in this case was received by the plaintiff before its maturity, as collateral security for a debt due by the payees, and that this debt was not paid. It further appeared that the payment made by the defendant to Lummus, payee of the note, was made before maturity, and it was not shown that the payee had possession of or was the owner of the note when the payment was made. Hnder the facts appearing in the record, the trial judge erred in overruling the certiorari. Paris v. Moe, [35]*3560 Ga. 90; Haug v. Riley, 101 Ga. 386 (29 S. E. 44, 40 L. R. A. 344); McDonald v. Horton, 20 Ga. App. 489 (93 S. E. 110).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. <

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 307, 22 Ga. App. 33, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-cumming-v-mason-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack