Jordon v. Colquitt National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jordon v. Colquitt National Bank

95 S.E. 319, 22 Ga. App. 23, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 110

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 13, 1918

Docket8971

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 319 (Jordon v. Colquitt 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

Jordon v. Colquitt National Bank, 95 S.E. 319, 22 Ga. App. 23, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 110 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

The note sued on had been previously held as collateral by the bank in whose name suit was brought. At the trial the bank filed its motion to dismiss the suit brought in its name, in which it was alleged that neither then nor at the time the suit was instituted did it own any interest in the note. It appears from the undisputed testimony of the bank president, given in support of this motion, that, previously to the time suit was filed, the bank had turned back and surrendered the note, sued on to the payee, with instructions that suit should not be brought in the bank’s name. Held, that under these circumstances the bank’s motion to dismiss the suit should have been sustained, notwithstanding the fact that the blank indorsement on the note may have remained uncaneeled. Civil Code (1910), § 5516; Bomar v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 111 Ga. 143 (36 S. E. 601); Bell v. Whitestone, 18 Ga. App. 536 (89 S. E. 1050).

Judgment reversed.

Wade, G. J., and Luloe, J., concur.

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

Jenkins, J.

The note sued on had been previously held as collateral by the bank in whose name suit was brought. At the trial the bank filed its motion to dismiss the suit brought in its name, in which it was alleged that neither then nor at the time the suit was instituted did it own any interest in the note. It appears from the undisputed testimony of the bank president, given in support of this motion, that, previously to the time suit was filed, the bank had turned back and surrendered the note, sued on to the payee, with instructions that suit should not be brought in the bank’s name. Held, that under these circumstances the bank’s motion to dismiss the suit should have been sustained, notwithstanding the fact that the blank indorsement on the note may have remained uncaneeled. Civil Code (1910), § 5516; Bomar v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 111 Ga. 143 (36 S. E. 601); Bell v. Whitestone, 18 Ga. App. 536 (89 S. E. 1050).

Judgment reversed.

Wade, G. J., and Luloe, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 319, 22 Ga. App. 23, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordon-v-colquitt-national-bank-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack