Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Claxton Bank v. Smith

Claxton Bank v. Smith

129 S.E. 142, 34 Ga. App. 265, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 213
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedAugust 21, 1925
Docket16035
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 129 S.E. 142 (Claxton Bank v. Smith) 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
Claxton Bank v. Smith, 129 S.E. 142, 34 Ga. App. 265, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 213 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. A person ordinarily is presumed to know the legal effect of an instrument that he has signed. Accordingly, where the maker of a collateralized note is in possession of a copy thereof, or where it fails to appear that the holder of the instrument employed deceitful or fraudulent means to prevent the maker from inspecting the original, and where no confidential relation exists between the maker and the creditor, the mere assertion by the holder of such a note, which does not contain a waiver of the thirty-days notice to sell the collateral as provided by law, that he has the right to immediately sell the property pledged, must be treated as a mere legal opinion or conclusion, and not as constituting legal fraud. Hill v. Sullivan, 63 Ga. 127 (2), 139; Clarke v. Ingram, 107 Ga. 565, 571 (33 S. E. 802) ; Hart v. Waldo, 117 Ga. 590, 591 (43 S. E. 998); Tolbert v. Caledonian Ins. Co., 101 Ga. 741 (28 S. E. 991); Whitehurst v. Mason, 140 Ga. 148, 153 (78 S. E. 938); Floyd v. Taylor Cotton Co., 26 Ga. App. 96 (105 S. E. 646), 26 C. J. 1207, 1208, 1210.

2. The portion of the evidence which was undisputed demanded a finding that the title to the collateral property passed to the plaintiff bank in part payment of the defendant’s previous past-due indebtedness at the time the note sued on was given for the remainder of said indebtedness, at which time the evidences of such prior indebtedness were marked satisfied, canceled, and surrendered. Consequently the ■defendant was not concerned as to when the collateral was sold, and [266]*266was not entitled to tlie benefit of any possible enhancement in value, of the .surrendered collateral.

Decided August 21, 1925.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. B. M. Girardeau, W. T. Burlchalier, J. T. Grice, for plaintiff. A. 8. Way, TS. 0. Collins, P. M. Anderson, for defendant.

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

Related

Brown v. MacK Trucks, Inc.
141 S.E.2d 208 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Fields v. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn.
114 S.E.2d 540 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Williams v. Dougherty County
113 S.E.2d 168 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Trust Co. of Georgia v. S. & W. CAFETERIA
103 S.E.2d 63 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Sherwin-Williams Company v. ST. PAULMERCURY INDEMNITY COMPANY
102 S.E.2d 919 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Dixon v. Dixon
87 S.E.2d 369 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1955)
Swofford v. Glaze
63 S.E.2d 342 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
Christopher v. Whitmire
34 S.E.2d 100 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Bernstein v. Peters
26 S.E.2d 192 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Beckmann v. Atlantic Refining Co.
187 S.E. 158 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
State v. Edwards
227 N.W. 495 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 S.E. 142, 34 Ga. App. 265, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claxton-bank-v-smith-gactapp-1925.