Bryan v. Windsor
This text of 25 S.E. 268 (Bryan v. Windsor) 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.
Opinion
1. Blank indorsements of negotiable paper may always be explained as between the parties themselves, and accordingly parol evidence is, in any given instance, admissible to show that such, an indorsement upon a promissory note was made simply to pass title and not to create liability in the indorser. Code, §3808 and cases there cited. See also Galceran v. Noble, 66 Ga. 367; Bedell v. Scarlett, 75 Ga. 56; Neal & Co. v. Wilson, 79 Ga. 736; Eppens v. Forbes, 82 Ga. 748.
2. It follows that there was no error in refusing to grant an injunction to restrain the further proceeding of actions pending on the appeal in the superior court, which had been brought in a county court by an indorsee against an indorser of promissory notes upon the latter’s indorsements of the same in blank, these indorsements, as alleged, having been made merely to pass title, and with a distinct agreement that the indorser was not to be liable. While it is true that in such eases the superior court could administer in behalf of the defendant no relief other than such as he might obtain in the county court, he could in either of these courts make a complete defense at law by pleading and proving the facts as to the purpose for which the indorsementswere made, and consequently there was no occasion for equitable interference. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 S.E. 268, 99 Ga. 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryan-v-windsor-ga-1896.