First National Bank v. Barrett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

First National Bank v. Barrett

93 S.E. 107, 20 Ga. App. 493, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 947

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 5, 1917

Docket8515

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 107 (First National Bank v. Barrett) 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

First National Bank v. Barrett, 93 S.E. 107, 20 Ga. App. 493, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 947 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. The court erred in admitting in evidence the various letters set out in the bill of exceptions, over objection from the plain- ■ tiff that their execution had not been proved. Freeman v. Brewster, 93 Ga. 648 (6) (21 S. E. 165); Kent v. Wadley Southern Ry. Co., 136 Ga. 857, 859 (72 S. E. 413); Lumpkin v. Provident Loan Society, 15 Ga. App. 816 (2) (84 S. E. 216).

2. The plaintiff bank, as holder, brought suit on a series of promissory notes, all made payable to Interstate Trading Company and all indorsed by Interstate Trading Company and by Interstate Chemical Company. The defendant in his plea admitted the execution of the notes, but denied that the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser of the notes before or after maturity, and alleged that there was a total failure "of consideration for the same, and that if the plaintiff did buy the notes [494]*494(which is denied) it knew of this failure of consideration at the time of the purchase. The burden was upon the defendant to sustain these allegations of his plea, and this burden he failed to carry. The court therefore erred in directing a verdict in his favor.

Decided July 5, 1917.

Complaint; from city court of Carrollton—Judge Beall. January 19, 1917.

Buford Boylcin, for plaintiff. J. 0. Newell, for defendant.

Judgment reversed.

Jenhvns and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. The court erred in admitting in evidence the various letters set out in the bill of exceptions, over objection from the plain- ■ tiff that their execution had not been proved. Freeman v. Brewster, 93 Ga. 648 (6) (21 S. E. 165); Kent v. Wadley Southern Ry. Co., 136 Ga. 857, 859 (72 S. E. 413); Lumpkin v. Provident Loan Society, 15 Ga. App. 816 (2) (84 S. E. 216).

2. The plaintiff bank, as holder, brought suit on a series of promissory notes, all made payable to Interstate Trading Company and all indorsed by Interstate Trading Company and by Interstate Chemical Company. The defendant in his plea admitted the execution of the notes, but denied that the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser of the notes before or after maturity, and alleged that there was a total failure "of consideration for the same, and that if the plaintiff did buy the notes [494]*494(which is denied) it knew of this failure of consideration at the time of the purchase. The burden was upon the defendant to sustain these allegations of his plea, and this burden he failed to carry. The court therefore erred in directing a verdict in his favor.

Decided July 5, 1917.

Complaint; from city court of Carrollton—Judge Beall. January 19, 1917.

Buford Boylcin, for plaintiff. J. 0. Newell, for defendant.

Judgment reversed.

Jenhvns and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 107, 20 Ga. App. 493, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-barrett-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack