Bearden v. First National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bearden v. First National Bank

114 S.E. 78, 29 Ga. App. 129, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 105

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 30, 1922

Docket12916

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 S.E. 78 (Bearden v. First National Bank) 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

Bearden v. First National Bank, 114 S.E. 78, 29 Ga. App. 129, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 105 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The defense of a failure or partial failure of consideration can not bé set up against a bona fide purchaser of a promissory note for value before maturity without notice of such defense.

2. In order for the purchaser of fertilizer to defeat his promissory note given in payment therefor, on the ground that the fertilizer was sold in violation of the provisions of the Civil Code (1910), § 1776; providing against the sale of fertilizer containing a too great degree of water or moisture, after such fertilizer had been inspected and its sale forbidden by the commissioner of agriculture, and therefore rendering the note given in payment therefor void because of an immoral and illegal consideration, and defendable under the Civil Code (1910), § 4286, as against an innocent purchaser before maturity, it must be shown that the fertilizer was inspected and found in such wet and unsalable condition and that its sale had been forbidden by the commissioner of agriculture.

3. This being a suit against the maker by the transferee of such a note, which had been transferred before maturity, for value, without notice, and applying the above principles, the special grounds of the defendant’s motion for a new trial are without merit, and, the evidence supporting the verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. The defense of a failure or partial failure of consideration can not bé set up against a bona fide purchaser of a promissory note for value before maturity without notice of such defense.

2. In order for the purchaser of fertilizer to defeat his promissory note given in payment therefor, on the ground that the fertilizer was sold in violation of the provisions of the Civil Code (1910), § 1776; providing against the sale of fertilizer containing a too great degree of water or moisture, after such fertilizer had been inspected and its sale forbidden by the commissioner of agriculture, and therefore rendering the note given in payment therefor void because of an immoral and illegal consideration, and defendable under the Civil Code (1910), § 4286, as against an innocent purchaser before maturity, it must be shown that the fertilizer was inspected and found in such wet and unsalable condition and that its sale had been forbidden by the commissioner of agriculture.

3. This being a suit against the maker by the transferee of such a note, which had been transferred before maturity, for value, without notice, and applying the above principles, the special grounds of the defendant’s motion for a new trial are without merit, and, the evidence supporting the verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E. 78, 29 Ga. App. 129, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bearden-v-first-national-bank-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack