Cook & Son v. Moody

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cook & Son v. Moody

87 S.E. 713, 17 Ga. App. 465, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 694

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1916

Docket6422

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 713 (Cook & Son v. Moody) 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

Cook & Son v. Moody, 87 S.E. 713, 17 Ga. App. 465, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 694 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. “The title of the holder of a note can not be inquired into, unless it is necessary for the protection of the defendant, or to let in the defense which he seeks to make.” Civil Code, § 4290.

[466]*466Decided January 11, 1916.

Complaint; from city court of Hazlelrurst — Judge Grant. February 27, 1915.

The action was by H. Cook & Son against the makers of a note payable “to cash or order” and indorsed in blank by the makers. The defendants demurred generally, and on the ground that it did not appear that the note was indorsed over with an order to pay to the plaintiffs, or that the plaintiffs were vested with the legal title to the note.

Newton Gasldns, for plaintiff. P. L. Smith, for defendant.

2. A promissory note, when payable to bearer, is negotiable by transfer and delivery only. Civil Code, § 4273.

{a) A promissory note payable to “cash or order,” and indorsed in blank by the makers thereof, is in effect payable to bearer. Hale v. State, 120 Ga. 138 (47 S.-E. 547). The holder of such a note is presumed to be vested with the legal title to the same, and has the right to bring suit against the makers and indorsers thereof,

3. The .court erred in sustaining the general and special demurrers to the petition. Jndgment reversed.

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