Exchange Bank v. Odum

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Exchange Bank v. Odum

90 S.E. 977, 19 Ga. App. 52, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 31

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 8, 1916

Docket7173

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 90 S.E. 977 (Exchange Bank v. Odum) 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

Exchange Bank v. Odum, 90 S.E. 977, 19 Ga. App. 52, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 31 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. A note payable on demand is due immediately (Civil Code, § 4292; Brinson Ry. Co. v. Exchange Bank of Springfield, 16 Ga. App. 425 (85 S. E. 634)), and a purchaser takes such a note subject to all equities between the original parties. Motel Lanier Co. v. Johnson, 103 Ga. 604 (3), 605 (30 S. E. 558) ; Dougherty v. Western Bank of Georgia, 13 Ga. 287; Meador v. Dollar Savings Bank, 56 Ga. 605 (3).

2. A promissory note payable “after date” and not otherwise expressing any time for payment is payable on demand (Hotel Lanier Co. v. Johnson, supra), and a note payable “on demand after date” is not a note payable on time. Hitchings v. Edmunds, 132 Mass. 338; Turner v. Iron Chief Mining Co., 74 Wis. 355 (43 N. W. 149, 5 L. R. A. 533, 17 Am. St. R. 168). It follows that a note payable “on demand next after date” (as was the note sued upon in this case) is due immediately, and a purchaser of the note would take it subject to the equities between the original parties. The use of the word “next,” which means “in the nearest time,” “just after,” “immediately following” (Standard Dictionary), could not have the effect of extending the time included by an expression construed to mean immediately.

3. The motion for a new trial is based upon the general grounds only, there was some evidence to support the verdict for the defendant, and therefore this court can not set the verdict aside.

Judgment affirmed.

Modges, J., absent.

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

Wade, C. J.

1. A note payable on demand is due immediately (Civil Code, § 4292; Brinson Ry. Co. v. Exchange Bank of Springfield, 16 Ga. App. 425 (85 S. E. 634)), and a purchaser takes such a note subject to all equities between the original parties. Motel Lanier Co. v. Johnson, 103 Ga. 604 (3), 605 (30 S. E. 558) ; Dougherty v. Western Bank of Georgia, 13 Ga. 287; Meador v. Dollar Savings Bank, 56 Ga. 605 (3).

2. A promissory note payable “after date” and not otherwise expressing any time for payment is payable on demand (Hotel Lanier Co. v. Johnson, supra), and a note payable “on demand after date” is not a note payable on time. Hitchings v. Edmunds, 132 Mass. 338; Turner v. Iron Chief Mining Co., 74 Wis. 355 (43 N. W. 149, 5 L. R. A. 533, 17 Am. St. R. 168). It follows that a note payable “on demand next after date” (as was the note sued upon in this case) is due immediately, and a purchaser of the note would take it subject to the equities between the original parties. The use of the word “next,” which means “in the nearest time,” “just after,” “immediately following” (Standard Dictionary), could not have the effect of extending the time included by an expression construed to mean immediately.

3. The motion for a new trial is based upon the general grounds only, there was some evidence to support the verdict for the defendant, and therefore this court can not set the verdict aside.

Judgment affirmed.

Modges, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 977, 19 Ga. App. 52, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exchange-bank-v-odum-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack