First National Bank v. Park

Court of Appeals of Georgia

First National Bank v. Park

92 S.E. 350, 20 Ga. App. 42, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 705

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 3, 1917

Docket7939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 350 (First National Bank v. Park) 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. Park, 92 S.E. 350, 20 Ga. App. 42, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 705 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

This was a suit in trover, brought by the receiver of the Bank of Blakely to recover certain notes transferred by the Bank of Blakely as collateral security for its cashier’s check for $1,989, previously given to the Birmingham Fertilizer Company, which was made a eodefendant in the suit. Under the facts of the case, before the plaintiff was entitled to reeovei-, it was incumbent upon him to show, among other" things: (1) that the bank made the transfer of the notes after its insolvency, or in contemplation of such insolvency; (2) that the transfer was made with the intent to create a preference, and (3) that the Birmingham Fertilizer Company was not an innocent pui-chaser for value without notice or knowledge of the condition of the bank. Civil Code (1910), § 2360. As to these issues the evidence did not demand a finding for the plaintiff, and the court, therefore, erred in • directing a verdict in his favor.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins and Bloodioorth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

This was a suit in trover, brought by the receiver of the Bank of Blakely to recover certain notes transferred by the Bank of Blakely as collateral security for its cashier’s check for $1,989, previously given to the Birmingham Fertilizer Company, which was made a eodefendant in the suit. Under the facts of the case, before the plaintiff was entitled to reeovei-, it was incumbent upon him to show, among other" things: (1) that the bank made the transfer of the notes after its insolvency, or in contemplation of such insolvency; (2) that the transfer was made with the intent to create a preference, and (3) that the Birmingham Fertilizer Company was not an innocent pui-chaser for value without notice or knowledge of the condition of the bank. Civil Code (1910), § 2360. As to these issues the evidence did not demand a finding for the plaintiff, and the court, therefore, erred in • directing a verdict in his favor.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins and Bloodioorth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 350, 20 Ga. App. 42, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-park-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack