Cobb v. Bank of Martin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cobb v. Bank of Martin

166 S.E. 424, 46 Ga. App. 10, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 6

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 8, 1932

Docket22261

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 S.E. 424 (Cobb v. Bank of Martin) 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

Cobb v. Bank of Martin, 166 S.E. 424, 46 Ga. App. 10, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 6 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

One who, though acting in good faith and without any effort to avoid liability on his own part, voluntarily undertakes to give to a minor stock in a bank, and has the certificate issued in the child’s name, remains liable to assessment as a stockholder as the true owner of the stock, for the reason that minors are incapable of assenting to such a transfer so as to incur the liability imposed by the statute. The minor, on coming of age, would have a right of election either to affirm or avoid the entire transaction; in the meantime, the transfer of the stock having resulted to the child’s disadvantage, the law will avoid it for him, thus leaving the liability upon the one making the transfer. [11]*11Doster v. Mobley, 38 Ga. App. 508 (144 S. E. 385); Park’s Banking Law of Ga. 381; Michie on Banks & Banking, Vol. 3, p. 1833; Rosenberg v. Bennett, 35 Ga. App. 86 (132 S. E. 119); Early v. Richardson, 280 U. S. 496 (74 L. ed. 575, 69 A. L. R. 658). Cases might be coneeived of in which a guardian or trustee might be legally empowered to invest funds belonging to a minor in bank stock, and in such cases, where such investment is legally made, the minor might not only acquire a perfect title to the property, but, as a legal consequence, might also be held to assume the liability incident thereto. In such a case he who thus became legally divested of his title in the transfer would be freed from the attendant liability. Such, however, is not the instant case. Here the minor did not act through any guardian or trustee authorized to bind her in the acquisition of the stock, and could not be made to assume any involuntary liability incident thereto.

Decided November 8, 1932.

2. Under the foregoing rulings, the trial judge, to whom the instant case was submitted for determination without a jury, did not err in holding the transferor of the stock liable for assessment.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur. Curry & Curry, for plaintiff in error. Rodney 8. Cohen, contra.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

One who, though acting in good faith and without any effort to avoid liability on his own part, voluntarily undertakes to give to a minor stock in a bank, and has the certificate issued in the child’s name, remains liable to assessment as a stockholder as the true owner of the stock, for the reason that minors are incapable of assenting to such a transfer so as to incur the liability imposed by the statute. The minor, on coming of age, would have a right of election either to affirm or avoid the entire transaction; in the meantime, the transfer of the stock having resulted to the child’s disadvantage, the law will avoid it for him, thus leaving the liability upon the one making the transfer. [11]*11Doster v. Mobley, 38 Ga. App. 508 (144 S. E. 385); Park’s Banking Law of Ga. 381; Michie on Banks & Banking, Vol. 3, p. 1833; Rosenberg v. Bennett, 35 Ga. App. 86 (132 S. E. 119); Early v. Richardson, 280 U. S. 496 (74 L. ed. 575, 69 A. L. R. 658). Cases might be coneeived of in which a guardian or trustee might be legally empowered to invest funds belonging to a minor in bank stock, and in such cases, where such investment is legally made, the minor might not only acquire a perfect title to the property, but, as a legal consequence, might also be held to assume the liability incident thereto. In such a case he who thus became legally divested of his title in the transfer would be freed from the attendant liability. Such, however, is not the instant case. Here the minor did not act through any guardian or trustee authorized to bind her in the acquisition of the stock, and could not be made to assume any involuntary liability incident thereto.

Decided November 8, 1932.

2. Under the foregoing rulings, the trial judge, to whom the instant case was submitted for determination without a jury, did not err in holding the transferor of the stock liable for assessment.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur. Curry & Curry, for plaintiff in error. Rodney 8. Cohen, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 424, 46 Ga. App. 10, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-bank-of-martin-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack