Caraker v. Hicks

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Caraker v. Hicks

71 S.E. 765, 9 Ga. App. 493, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 199

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 29, 1911

Docket3290

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 765 (Caraker v. Hicks) 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

Caraker v. Hicks, 71 S.E. 765, 9 Ga. App. 493, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 199 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Eowell, J.

1. The evidence authorized the verdict.

2, The note sued upon was made payable to L. W. Gardner, or order, And was transferred by Gardner to the plaintiff before maturity. It appeared that the note was given for the purchase price of certain mining stock, which one Joe Stump was selling as. agent for the plaintiff, and that the note was made payable to Gardner (who was another salesman) merely for convenience, with the understanding that, he would transfer it to the plaintiff. Held, that the plaintiff was not a bona fide holder of the note, notwithstanding he may have advanced money either to Stump or to Gardner upon the note, by way of payment of their commissions in the transaction or otherwise, and that, while the court erred in submitting to the jury the question as to whether the plaintiff was or was not a bona fide holder for value, it was an error as to which the plaintiff can not complain. Judgment affirmed,.

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

Eowell, J.

1. The evidence authorized the verdict.

2, The note sued upon was made payable to L. W. Gardner, or order, And was transferred by Gardner to the plaintiff before maturity. It appeared that the note was given for the purchase price of certain mining stock, which one Joe Stump was selling as. agent for the plaintiff, and that the note was made payable to Gardner (who was another salesman) merely for convenience, with the understanding that, he would transfer it to the plaintiff. Held, that the plaintiff was not a bona fide holder of the note, notwithstanding he may have advanced money either to Stump or to Gardner upon the note, by way of payment of their commissions in the transaction or otherwise, and that, while the court erred in submitting to the jury the question as to whether the plaintiff was or was not a bona fide holder for value, it was an error as to which the plaintiff can not complain. Judgment affirmed,.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 765, 9 Ga. App. 493, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caraker-v-hicks-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

1. The evidence authorized the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack