Henderson v. First National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Henderson v. First National Bank

121 S.E. 127, 31 Ga. App. 519, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 14

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1924

Docket15016

StatusPublished

This text of 121 S.E. 127 (Henderson v. First National Bank) 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

Henderson v. First National Bank, 121 S.E. 127, 31 Ga. App. 519, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 14 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Tlie suit being upon a negotiable promissory note, brought by a transferee, and there being no evidence to authorize the jury to find that the transfer alleged and proved by the plaintiff was made after the maturity of the note, or that the plaintiff acquired the note with notice of any of the alleged defenses, and those defenses being such as cannot be set up against an innocent purchaser for value before maturity, and there being no other issue left in the case, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

2. Under the facts of the case, the other grounds of the motion for a new trial (complaining of the exclusion of certain evidence offered by the defendant) are without substantial merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J. concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. Tlie suit being upon a negotiable promissory note, brought by a transferee, and there being no evidence to authorize the jury to find that the transfer alleged and proved by the plaintiff was made after the maturity of the note, or that the plaintiff acquired the note with notice of any of the alleged defenses, and those defenses being such as cannot be set up against an innocent purchaser for value before maturity, and there being no other issue left in the case, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

2. Under the facts of the case, the other grounds of the motion for a new trial (complaining of the exclusion of certain evidence offered by the defendant) are without substantial merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 127, 31 Ga. App. 519, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-first-national-bank-gactapp-1924.