Dooner v. Heakes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dooner v. Heakes

169 S.E. 381, 46 Ga. App. 837, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 263

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 13, 1933

Docket22635

StatusPublished

This text of 169 S.E. 381 (Dooner v. Heakes) 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

Dooner v. Heakes, 169 S.E. 381, 46 Ga. App. 837, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 263 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, R. J.

Where one gives a negotiable promissory note to another, and the payee, by blank indorsement, discounts it to a third person, and on default as to payment the third person demands that the payee give his own personal note in substitution for the one discounted, and, in the absence of any demand for the old note, holds it merely as custodian, subject to be delivered to the payee at any time, and where the maker of the original note sees proper to execute to the original payee a renewal note without a return of the original note, an action on the renewal note is maintainable by the original payee against the maker, on its being-made to appear that the person buying the original note retained no title or interest therein. The rule would be otherwise if an action on the original note were maintainable by the purchaser, and if it had not been made to appear that the purchaser retained no title or interest therein or claim thereto, but merely held it for delivery to such payee.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur. Gazan, Walsh Bernstein, for plaintiff in error. Fdwin J. Fender, contra.

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

Jenkins, R. J.

Where one gives a negotiable promissory note to another, and the payee, by blank indorsement, discounts it to a third person, and on default as to payment the third person demands that the payee give his own personal note in substitution for the one discounted, and, in the absence of any demand for the old note, holds it merely as custodian, subject to be delivered to the payee at any time, and where the maker of the original note sees proper to execute to the original payee a renewal note without a return of the original note, an action on the renewal note is maintainable by the original payee against the maker, on its being-made to appear that the person buying the original note retained no title or interest therein. The rule would be otherwise if an action on the original note were maintainable by the purchaser, and if it had not been made to appear that the purchaser retained no title or interest therein or claim thereto, but merely held it for delivery to such payee.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur. Gazan, Walsh Bernstein, for plaintiff in error. Fdwin J. Fender, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.E. 381, 46 Ga. App. 837, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dooner-v-heakes-gactapp-1933.