Bank of Madison v. Cochran

105 S.E. 626, 26 Ga. App. 125, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 16
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 20, 1921·No. 11463·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Where one purporting to be the maker of a promissory note • negotiates it, for a money consideration, with the payee named therein, the note will be considered as the act and deed of the alleged maker, although he did not in fact sign the note. Under such evidence a plea of non est factum is not sustained.

2. There being no conflict in the evidence upon the controlling question in this ease, the judge of the trial court erred in sustaining the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., amd Hill, J., concur. Certiorari; from Putnam superior court — Judge Park. March 17, 1920. M. G. Few, for plaintiff. R. G. Jenlcins, for defendant.

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

Bank of Madison v. Cochran, 105 S.E. 626, 26 Ga. App. 125, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 16 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

105 S.E. 626 (Bank of Madison v. Cochran) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Beeland v. Clark
169 S.E. 681 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
National Bond & Investment Co. v. Crosby
155 S.E. 777 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)