Bank of Statham v. National Bank

84 S.E. 966, 143 Ga. 293, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 400
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 13, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 966 (Bank of Statham v. National Bank) 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 Statham v. National Bank, 84 S.E. 966, 143 Ga. 293, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 400 (Ga. 1915).

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. A cashier’s cheek is a primary obligation of the bank, and the holder thereof may sue the bank as maker, without joining the payee or indorsers in such suit.

2. Where a cashier’s check is made payable to the order of a real person who has no knowledge of the transaction, and who has no interest in the check and is not intended to become a party to the transaction, such person may be deemed fictitious; and when the name of such person is indorsed on the check by the cashier, or with his authority, such check [294]*294is deemed payable to bearer, and a holder in good faith may bring an action against the bank on which it is drawn, as maker, to recover the amount of the check. 2 Bouvier’s Law Dict. (Rawle’s 3d ed.) 778 (“Fictitious Payee”) ; Phillips v. Mercantile National Bank, 140 N. Y. 556 (35 N. E. 982, 23 L. R. A. 584, 37 Am. St. R. 596); Jordan Marsh Co. v. National Shawmut Bank, 201 Mass. 397 (87 N. E. 740, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 250) ; Snyder v. Corn Exchange National Bank, 221 Pa. 599 (70 Atl. 876, 128 Am. St. R. 780) ; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst. (6th ed.), § 139; Drinkall v. Movius State Bank, 11 N. D. 10 (88 N. W. 724, 726, 57 L. R. A. 341, 95 Am. St. R. 693) ; 1 Parsons on Bills & Notes, 288.

April 13, 1915. Complaint. Before Judge Brand. Jackson superior court. July 6, 1914. W. W. Starts, for plaintiff in error. T. S. Melt and Wolver M. Smith, contra.

3. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition, nor in sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrer to the plea in abatement.

4. Irrespective of any errors alleged to have been committed on the trial, the facts of this case bring it within the principles of law announced in the preceding headnotes. The verdict was demanded, and the court did not err in denying a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

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

Related

Harris v. Hill
199 S.E.2d 847 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Wright v. Trust Company of Georgia
134 S.E.2d 457 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
First National Bank of Portland v. Noble
168 P.2d 354 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1946)
Polotsky v. Artisans Savings Bank
188 A. 63 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1936)
Nissenbaum v. State
143 S.E. 776 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
English v. Poole
121 S.E. 589 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 S.E. 966, 143 Ga. 293, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-statham-v-national-bank-ga-1915.