Holman v. Drake

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holman v. Drake

107 S.E. 899, 27 Ga. App. 260, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 810

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 30, 1921

Docket12442

StatusPublished

This text of 107 S.E. 899 (Holman v. Drake) 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

Holman v. Drake, 107 S.E. 899, 27 Ga. App. 260, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 810 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

This is a suit to recover $800, the alleged purchase-price of certain land. The amended petition shows that the defendant gave to the plaintiff a draft (signed by the defendant) for $800, in payment of certain land “ bought ” by the defendant from the plaintiff, and that the draft was promptly presented to the drawee, and payment thereof refused. The petition, however, when construed, as it must be, most strongly against the plaintiff, further shows that no deed to the land was ever given or tendered to the defendant. The petition therefore showed that the draft was without consideration, and that there was no right of recovery in the plaintiff; and it was error for the court to overrule the general demurrer interposed.

This ruling does not conflict with, but. is supported by, the decision in Purcell v. Armour Packing Co., 4 Ga. App. 253 (61 S. E. 138), cited and relied on by counsel for the defendant in error. That decision correctly holds: “1. A declaration setting forth a bank check and alleging, that it was given to the plaintiff by the defendant in consideration of merchandise which the plaintiff delivered to a third person, and that the check had been duly presented for payment, and that payment thereof was refused by the drawee, sets forth a good cause of action.” “ 3. In a suit by a payee against a maker of a bank check, the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case by proving the execution and delivery of the check, and that it has been duly presented to the drawee for payment, and payment thereof refused. The check itself imports its own consideration, in the sense that consideration will be presumed until the contrary appears.” In that case, however, it was also held: “ 2. Between the immediate parties, a bank cheek must be. supported by a consideration, in order to be enforceable against the maker.” “ (a) When sued thereon by the original payee, the [261]*261maker can show by parol evidence that the cheek is without consideration, or that the'consideration has failed.” “(b) A plea alleging that a check was given to the plaintiff by the defendant without any present consideration, but with the understanding that if a third person would turn certain money over to the defendant at a future time the check would be paid out of it, and further alleging that the money has never been turned over lo the defendant, sets forth a good defense; and the court erred in striking the plea, on demurrer.” While it was held jn the Purcell ease that the question of a consideration for the bank check was a matter of defense, and that the petition was not subject to general demurrer, this ruling was based on the fact that the petilion itself did not show a failure of consideration. In the instant case, however, it clearly appears from the petiiion itself, when construed most strongly against the plaintiff, that the draft given by the defendant was without any present consideration, and was given with the understanding that the plaintiff was to make the defendant a deed to the land, and that this was never done.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

This is a suit to recover $800, the alleged purchase-price of certain land. The amended petition shows that the defendant gave to the plaintiff a draft (signed by the defendant) for $800, in payment of certain land “ bought ” by the defendant from the plaintiff, and that the draft was promptly presented to the drawee, and payment thereof refused. The petition, however, when construed, as it must be, most strongly against the plaintiff, further shows that no deed to the land was ever given or tendered to the defendant. The petition therefore showed that the draft was without consideration, and that there was no right of recovery in the plaintiff; and it was error for the court to overrule the general demurrer interposed.

This ruling does not conflict with, but. is supported by, the decision in Purcell v. Armour Packing Co., 4 Ga. App. 253 (61 S. E. 138), cited and relied on by counsel for the defendant in error. That decision correctly holds: “1. A declaration setting forth a bank check and alleging, that it was given to the plaintiff by the defendant in consideration of merchandise which the plaintiff delivered to a third person, and that the check had been duly presented for payment, and that payment thereof was refused by the drawee, sets forth a good cause of action.” “ 3. In a suit by a payee against a maker of a bank check, the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case by proving the execution and delivery of the check, and that it has been duly presented to the drawee for payment, and payment thereof refused. The check itself imports its own consideration, in the sense that consideration will be presumed until the contrary appears.” In that case, however, it was also held: “ 2. Between the immediate parties, a bank cheek must be. supported by a consideration, in order to be enforceable against the maker.” “ (a) When sued thereon by the original payee, the [261]*261maker can show by parol evidence that the cheek is without consideration, or that the'consideration has failed.” “(b) A plea alleging that a check was given to the plaintiff by the defendant without any present consideration, but with the understanding that if a third person would turn certain money over to the defendant at a future time the check would be paid out of it, and further alleging that the money has never been turned over lo the defendant, sets forth a good defense; and the court erred in striking the plea, on demurrer.” While it was held jn the Purcell ease that the question of a consideration for the bank check was a matter of defense, and that the petition was not subject to general demurrer, this ruling was based on the fact that the petilion itself did not show a failure of consideration. In the instant case, however, it clearly appears from the petiiion itself, when construed most strongly against the plaintiff, that the draft given by the defendant was without any present consideration, and was given with the understanding that the plaintiff was to make the defendant a deed to the land, and that this was never done.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 899, 27 Ga. App. 260, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holman-v-drake-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack