First National Bank v. Owens

95 S.E. 2, 147 Ga. 599, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 53
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 16, 1918
DocketNo. 297
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 2 (First National Bank v. Owens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Owens, 95 S.E. 2, 147 Ga. 599, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 53 (Ga. 1918).

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

The First National Bank of Rome, Ga., as the transferee of three warrants drawn by the commissioners of roads and revenues of Floyd County, filed a petition for mandamus to require the treasurer of the county to pay the principal and the interest that had accrued thereon. Mandamus nisi was issued thereon. Subsequently the Third National Bank of Atlanta intervened as a party plaintiff, showing that it had two warrants drawn by the said commissioners. It is alleged that when first presented for payment the warrants were not paid for want of funds, which fact was entered upon the face of each warrant. Before the filing of the petition for mandamus the First National Bank of Rome made demand for the payment of principal and accrued interest from the date of issue at the rate of 7 per cent., which demand was refused on the ground that the warrants did not bear interest and the county treasurer could not legally pay interest. Thereupon the petitioner demanded payment of the principal of the warrants, with interest after the date when they had been presented, and, that being refused, demanded payment.of the principal with interest after January 2, 1917, the date upon which the warrants had been registered by the county treasurer. This demand was also refused. The principal of the warrants held by the intervenor had been paid, and it sought to compel the payment by the county treasurer of the interest merely. There was no issue of fact. The allegations of fact in the petition and intervention were admitted. Held, that the refusal of a mandamus absolute was [600]*600not error. The facts, so far as they relate to the controlling question involved, are substantially as presented in Lettice v. American National Bank, 133 Ga. 874 (67 S. E. 187), as clearly appears from an inspection of the record in that case. See also, in this connection, 15 R. C. L. 17, 18; Board of Commissioners v. Haul, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 552, note (77 Kan. 717, 96 Pac. 45). Under the decision in the case oi,Lettiae v. Bank, supra, the ruling made in State v. Speer, 33 Ga. Supp. 93, is not controlling under the facts of this case.

No. 297. January 16, 1918. Rehearing denied February 25, 1918. Petition for mandamus. Before Judge Wright. Floyd superior court. April 12, 1917. Maddox & Doyal and Payne & Jones, for plaintiffs. J. Branham, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent.

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

Related

Kolker Chemical Corp. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
196 A.2d 266 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1963)
Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of City of Newark
186 A.2d 291 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1962)
Marion County v. First National Bank
18 S.E.2d 475 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Allen v. Woods
161 S.E. 655 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Gaston v. Shunk Plow Co.
130 S.E. 580 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Hartley v. Nash
121 S.E. 295 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Tift & Peed Grocery Co. v. Worth County
103 S.E. 465 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.E. 2, 147 Ga. 599, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-owens-ga-1918.