Branch v. Dublin & Laurens Bank

94 S.E. 629, 21 Ga. App. 439, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 627
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 14, 1917·No. 8626·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

1. A purchaser of a negotiable note, although with notice either express or constructive of equities and defenses as between the maker and the original payee, is protected in his title and may recover on it, if he purchased, even without recourse, from one who took it, bona fide and without notice, from the original payee. Civil Code (1910), §4535; Burch v. Pope, 114 Ga. 334 (40 S. E. 227); Weil v. Carswell, 119 Ga. 873 (47 S. E. 217); Wade v. Elliott, 11 Ga. App. 646 (75 S. E. 989); Day v. Rogers, 7 Ga. App. 535 (67 S. E. 279).

2. The court did not err in excluding the testimony complained of, or in 'thereafter directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Luhe, J., concur.

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

Branch v. Dublin & Laurens Bank, 94 S.E. 629, 21 Ga. App. 439, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

94 S.E. 629 (Branch v. Dublin & Laurens Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Houston v. Lundy
163 S.E. 328 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Luke v. Bank
151 S.E. 562 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
North Georgia Trust & Banking Co. v. Hulme
134 S.E. 200 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)