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

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 3, 1917·No. 7939·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

Pincite

92 S.E. 350 (First National Bank v. Park) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related