First State Bank v. Herrington

Court of Appeals of Georgia

First State Bank v. Herrington

105 S.E. 316, 26 Ga. App. 35, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 251

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 15, 1920·No. 11723·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where a promissory note payable one day after date is brought by a third person after it is due, the buyer does not occupy the position of an innocent purchaser, but takes the note subject to all the equities between the original parties. Civil Code, (1910), § 4287; Beall v. Leverett, 32 Ga. 105 (79 Am. Dec. 298).

2. Under the above ruling and all the particular facts of the instant case, the oourt did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Complaint; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Reid. May 26, 1920.

Anderson & Slale, J. L. Anderson, for plaintiff. Hines, Ilardwiclc & Jordan, for defendants.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where a promissory note payable one day after date is brought by a third person after it is due, the buyer does not occupy the position of an innocent purchaser, but takes the note subject to all the equities between the original parties. Civil Code, (1910), § 4287; Beall v. Leverett, 32 Ga. 105 (79 Am. Dec. 298).

2. Under the above ruling and all the particular facts of the instant case, the oourt did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Complaint; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Reid. May 26, 1920.

Anderson & Slale, J. L. Anderson, for plaintiff. Hines, Ilardwiclc & Jordan, for defendants.

First State Bank v. Herrington, 105 S.E. 316, 26 Ga. App. 35, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 251 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

105 S.E. 316 (First State Bank v. Herrington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related