Cook v. Griffin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cook v. Griffin

1 S.E.2d 709, 59 Ga. App. 562, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 362

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 3, 1939

Docket27173

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 S.E.2d 709 (Cook v. Griffin) 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 v. Griffin, 1 S.E.2d 709, 59 Ga. App. 562, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “The holder, as the transferee, of a negotiable promissory note, is presumably a holder in due course. In a suit thereon by him against the maker, where the defendant pleads that the plaintiff is not a holder in due course, the burden is upon the defendant to establish this allegation in the plea.” Cairo Banking Co. v. Hall, 42 Ca. App. 785 (2) (157 S. E. 346); Code, § 14-509.

2. “A bill or note indorsed in blank is' transferable by delivery, and the indorsement, so long as it continues in blank, makes the bill or note in effect payable to bearer. Possession of such a negotiable instrument proves property. Chitty on Bills, 253-255; Stirling v. Bender, 7 Ark. 201 (44 Am. D. 539).” South v. People’s National Bank, 4 Ga. App. 92 (2) (60 S. E. 1087); Nisbet v. Lawson, 1 Ga. 275, 284; Culpepper v. Culpepper, 18 Ga. App. 182 (3) (89 S. E. 161); Edwards v. Camp, 29 Ga. App. 556 (2) (116 S. E. 210).

3. Applying the foregoing rulings to the facts of the instant case, the evidence for the plaintiff showed that he was presumably a holder in due course of the note sued on; and the evidence for the defendant failed to [563]*563sustain his pleaded allegation that the plaintiff was not such a holder. It follows that the direction of a verdict for the plaintiff was not error.

Decided March 3, 1939. John 8. Gibson> for plaintiff in error. Quincey ■& Quincey, Mingledorff & Roberts, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and tíuerry, JJ., con our.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “The holder, as the transferee, of a negotiable promissory note, is presumably a holder in due course. In a suit thereon by him against the maker, where the defendant pleads that the plaintiff is not a holder in due course, the burden is upon the defendant to establish this allegation in the plea.” Cairo Banking Co. v. Hall, 42 Ca. App. 785 (2) (157 S. E. 346); Code, § 14-509.

2. “A bill or note indorsed in blank is' transferable by delivery, and the indorsement, so long as it continues in blank, makes the bill or note in effect payable to bearer. Possession of such a negotiable instrument proves property. Chitty on Bills, 253-255; Stirling v. Bender, 7 Ark. 201 (44 Am. D. 539).” South v. People’s National Bank, 4 Ga. App. 92 (2) (60 S. E. 1087); Nisbet v. Lawson, 1 Ga. 275, 284; Culpepper v. Culpepper, 18 Ga. App. 182 (3) (89 S. E. 161); Edwards v. Camp, 29 Ga. App. 556 (2) (116 S. E. 210).

3. Applying the foregoing rulings to the facts of the instant case, the evidence for the plaintiff showed that he was presumably a holder in due course of the note sued on; and the evidence for the defendant failed to [563]*563sustain his pleaded allegation that the plaintiff was not such a holder. It follows that the direction of a verdict for the plaintiff was not error.

Decided March 3, 1939. John 8. Gibson> for plaintiff in error. Quincey ■& Quincey, Mingledorff & Roberts, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and tíuerry, JJ., con our.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.E.2d 709, 59 Ga. App. 562, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-griffin-gactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack