Citizens First National Bank v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Citizens First National Bank v. Wilson

111 S.E. 821, 28 Ga. App. 524, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 653

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 26, 1922

Docket13184, 13185

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 821 (Citizens First National Bank v. Wilson) 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

Citizens First National Bank v. Wilson, 111 S.E. 821, 28 Ga. App. 524, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 653 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Sill, J.

This was a suit by a bank on thirteen promissory notes bearing the same date and due at different times, made by the defendant Wilson and payable to the order of the Chal-Max Motor Company. They were not indorsed by the payee. By an amendment to the petition it was alleged that the notes were transferred to the plaintiff on an independent and separate piece of paper attached to them. The defendant made a motion to dismiss the suit, on the ground that there was nothing to show that the plaintiff held the legal title to the notes, and therefore it had no right to bring the suit in its own name, but the suit should have been brought in the name of the Chal-Max Motor Company for the use of the plaintiff. The court sustained; the motion, and this is the error complained of.

[525]*525There was no error in the dismissal of the suit; nothing appearing-on the notes to show the title in the plaintiff, the Citizens First National Bank, and the amendment offered being only sufficient to show an equitable interest of the plaintiff therein. Where a promissory note is made payable to “ order,” and is transferred without indorsement, the transferee does not acquire the legal title, but acquires only an equitable title to the note. The notes sued on being payable to order, the mere delivery of them would not have the effect to pass the legal title, nor would the mere assignment thereof, evidenced by another and entirely distinct instrument in writing, have that effect. Benson v. Abbott, 95 Ga. 69 (22 S. E. 127); Haug v. Riley, 101 Ga. 373 (29 S. E. 44, 40 L. R. A. 244); Daniel on Negotiable Instruments (6th ed.), § 741; Herring v. First National Bank, 13 Ga. App. 492 (79 S. E. 359); Lowry National Bank v. Maddox, 4 Ga. App. 329 (61 S. E. 296).

Judgment on the main bill of exceptions affirmedj cross-bill dismissed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Sill, J.

This was a suit by a bank on thirteen promissory notes bearing the same date and due at different times, made by the defendant Wilson and payable to the order of the Chal-Max Motor Company. They were not indorsed by the payee. By an amendment to the petition it was alleged that the notes were transferred to the plaintiff on an independent and separate piece of paper attached to them. The defendant made a motion to dismiss the suit, on the ground that there was nothing to show that the plaintiff held the legal title to the notes, and therefore it had no right to bring the suit in its own name, but the suit should have been brought in the name of the Chal-Max Motor Company for the use of the plaintiff. The court sustained; the motion, and this is the error complained of.

[525]*525There was no error in the dismissal of the suit; nothing appearing-on the notes to show the title in the plaintiff, the Citizens First National Bank, and the amendment offered being only sufficient to show an equitable interest of the plaintiff therein. Where a promissory note is made payable to “ order,” and is transferred without indorsement, the transferee does not acquire the legal title, but acquires only an equitable title to the note. The notes sued on being payable to order, the mere delivery of them would not have the effect to pass the legal title, nor would the mere assignment thereof, evidenced by another and entirely distinct instrument in writing, have that effect. Benson v. Abbott, 95 Ga. 69 (22 S. E. 127); Haug v. Riley, 101 Ga. 373 (29 S. E. 44, 40 L. R. A. 244); Daniel on Negotiable Instruments (6th ed.), § 741; Herring v. First National Bank, 13 Ga. App. 492 (79 S. E. 359); Lowry National Bank v. Maddox, 4 Ga. App. 329 (61 S. E. 296).

Judgment on the main bill of exceptions affirmedj cross-bill dismissed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 821, 28 Ga. App. 524, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-first-national-bank-v-wilson-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack