Central Trust Co. v. Fargason

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Central Trust Co. v. Fargason

94 S.E. 902, 21 Ga. App. 696, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 484

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 29, 1918

Docket8891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 902 (Central Trust Co. v. Fargason) 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

Central Trust Co. v. Fargason, 94 S.E. 902, 21 Ga. App. 696, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 484 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

“If the holder [of a negotiable instrument] receives it after it is due, its non-payment at maturity is notice to him of dishonor, and he takes it subject to all the equities existing between the original parties thereto” (Civil Code of 1910, § 4287), arising out of and connected with the original contract (Civil Code of 1910, § 4344) ; but the fact that a note is overdue does not destroy its character of negotiability (see authorities cited in note 1 to ease of Young Men’s Christian Association Gymnasium v. Rockford National Bank (179 Ill. 599, 54 N. E. 297, 70 Am. St. R. 135), as reported in 46 L. E. A. 753) ; and equities between the maker and the payee, originating after a transfer to a third person, will not affect the rights of the holder, though the transfer be made after the note becomes due. Whittaker v. Kuhn, 52 Iowa 315 (3 N. W. 127; 7 Cyc. 820 (3); 8 C. J. 389, § 576; Civil Code (1910), § 3653; Guerry v. Perryman, 6 Ga. 119.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, O. J., and Luke, J., eoncttr.

. Complaint; from city court of Dawson — Judge Edwards. May 12, 1917.

Parles & Paries, Miller & Jones, for plaintiff. Yeomans & Wilkinson, for defendant.

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

Jenkins, J.

“If the holder [of a negotiable instrument] receives it after it is due, its non-payment at maturity is notice to him of dishonor, and he takes it subject to all the equities existing between the original parties thereto” (Civil Code of 1910, § 4287), arising out of and connected with the original contract (Civil Code of 1910, § 4344) ; but the fact that a note is overdue does not destroy its character of negotiability (see authorities cited in note 1 to ease of Young Men’s Christian Association Gymnasium v. Rockford National Bank (179 Ill. 599, 54 N. E. 297, 70 Am. St. R. 135), as reported in 46 L. E. A. 753) ; and equities between the maker and the payee, originating after a transfer to a third person, will not affect the rights of the holder, though the transfer be made after the note becomes due. Whittaker v. Kuhn, 52 Iowa 315 (3 N. W. 127; 7 Cyc. 820 (3); 8 C. J. 389, § 576; Civil Code (1910), § 3653; Guerry v. Perryman, 6 Ga. 119.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, O. J., and Luke, J., eoncttr.

. Complaint; from city court of Dawson — Judge Edwards. May 12, 1917.

Parles & Paries, Miller & Jones, for plaintiff. Yeomans & Wilkinson, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 902, 21 Ga. App. 696, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-trust-co-v-fargason-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack