Benton Transfer Co. v. Marion National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Benton Transfer Co. v. Marion National Bank

106 S.E. 735, 26 Ga. App. 562, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 526

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 26, 1921

Docket11846

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 106 S.E. 735 (Benton Transfer Co. v. Marion 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

Benton Transfer Co. v. Marion National Bank, 106 S.E. 735, 26 Ga. App. 562, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 526 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

The words, “ Eor value received we hereby assign, transfer, and set over to the Marion National Bank all our right, title, and interest in and to the within note and in and to the said Indiana Motor Trucks for which this note was executed,” written on the back of a promissory note and signed by the payee, is an indorsement oi[ the note. Vanzant v. Arnold, 31 Ga. 210(2) ; Baldwin Fertilizer Co. v. Carmichael, 116 Ga. 762 (42 S. E. 1002) ; Hendrix v. Beuhard, 138 Ga. 473 (75 S. E. 588, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1028, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 688).

2. The defenses attempted to be set up not coming within any'of the provisions of section 4286 of the Civil Code (1910), the trial court did not err in striking them and in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, especially in view of the fact that in this case the pleadings showed that the defense relied upon was in no wise connected with the transaction put of which grew the note sued on. \

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., eonew. Saussy &.Saussy, for plaintiff in error. ■ Jacob Gazan, contra.

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

Hill, J.

The words, “ Eor value received we hereby assign, transfer, and set over to the Marion National Bank all our right, title, and interest in and to the within note and in and to the said Indiana Motor Trucks for which this note was executed,” written on the back of a promissory note and signed by the payee, is an indorsement oi[ the note. Vanzant v. Arnold, 31 Ga. 210(2) ; Baldwin Fertilizer Co. v. Carmichael, 116 Ga. 762 (42 S. E. 1002) ; Hendrix v. Beuhard, 138 Ga. 473 (75 S. E. 588, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1028, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 688).

2. The defenses attempted to be set up not coming within any'of the provisions of section 4286 of the Civil Code (1910), the trial court did not err in striking them and in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, especially in view of the fact that in this case the pleadings showed that the defense relied upon was in no wise connected with the transaction put of which grew the note sued on. \

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., eonew. Saussy &.Saussy, for plaintiff in error. ■ Jacob Gazan, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 735, 26 Ga. App. 562, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-transfer-co-v-marion-national-bank-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack