Kalb v. Gwinnett Commercial Bank
This text of 267 S.E.2d 258 (Kalb v. Gwinnett Commercial 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.
Opinion
This is a suit upon a promissory note assigned by the payee, Bentley, to the appellee bank. Appellants, makers of the note, contend that it was error for the trial court to grant summary judgment to the bank because there was a genuine issue as to whether the bank was a holder in due course so as to take the instrument free of defenses which Bentley might have. We agree.
The promissory note in issue states on its face that it is "non-negotiable.” We considered an identical note in Henry v. Cobb Bank &c. Co., 151 Ga. App. 725 (1979), which is controlling here. In that case we held such a note to be non-negotiable and therefore, Code Ann. Ch. 109A-3 is not applicable. This court held further that the trial court improperly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (on the erroneous assumption plaintiff was a [834]*834holder in due course), since there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the parties’ intentions in making the note and the purpose for which it was delivered, as well as an issue of fact as to defendant’s allegations of setoff. As this court’s holding in Henry, supra, is applicable to the instant case, the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment to appellee must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
267 S.E.2d 258, 153 Ga. App. 833, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalb-v-gwinnett-commercial-bank-gactapp-1980.