Knight Co. v. Calhoun

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Knight Co. v. Calhoun

125 S.E. 790, 33 Ga. App. 312, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 851

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 19, 1924

Docket15837

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 S.E. 790 (Knight Co. v. Calhoun) 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

Knight Co. v. Calhoun, 125 S.E. 790, 33 Ga. App. 312, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 851 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. Where, without consideration, the payee of a draft indorses it over to another, who thereafter sues him on the indorsement, the want of consideration for the indorsement is a good defense. Each indorsement is a new contract, and, like other contracts, must be supported by a consideration. Cox v. Adams, 2 Ga. 158 (3); Civil Code (1910), § 4261.

2. While a consideration need not necessarily be a benefit accruing to the promisor (Civil Code of 1910, § 4242), and “if there be a valid consideration for the promise, it matters not from whom it is moved” (Civil Code of 1910, § 4249), and while the averments in paragraph 4 of the defendant’s answer perhaps did not negative the existence of a consideration, this was not" true of the general allegations of paragraphs 5 and 6, the same not being limited by any other matter contained in the answer, and being considered on a mere oral motion to strike in the nature of a general demurrer; and it was, therefore, error to strike the answer. The pleas did not attempt a violation of the parol-evidence rule. Mackin v. Blalock, 133 Ga. 550 (2) (66 S. E. 265, 134 Am. St. Rep. 220); Mimbs v. Stephens Hardware Co., 22 Ga. App. 88 (95 S. E. 377); Stewart v. Hardin, 24 Ga. App. 611 (1) (101 S. E. 716).

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., coneur. Blaloclc & Blalock, for plaintiff in error. Parker & Parker, contra.

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

Bell, J.

1. Where, without consideration, the payee of a draft indorses it over to another, who thereafter sues him on the indorsement, the want of consideration for the indorsement is a good defense. Each indorsement is a new contract, and, like other contracts, must be supported by a consideration. Cox v. Adams, 2 Ga. 158 (3); Civil Code (1910), § 4261.

2. While a consideration need not necessarily be a benefit accruing to the promisor (Civil Code of 1910, § 4242), and “if there be a valid consideration for the promise, it matters not from whom it is moved” (Civil Code of 1910, § 4249), and while the averments in paragraph 4 of the defendant’s answer perhaps did not negative the existence of a consideration, this was not" true of the general allegations of paragraphs 5 and 6, the same not being limited by any other matter contained in the answer, and being considered on a mere oral motion to strike in the nature of a general demurrer; and it was, therefore, error to strike the answer. The pleas did not attempt a violation of the parol-evidence rule. Mackin v. Blalock, 133 Ga. 550 (2) (66 S. E. 265, 134 Am. St. Rep. 220); Mimbs v. Stephens Hardware Co., 22 Ga. App. 88 (95 S. E. 377); Stewart v. Hardin, 24 Ga. App. 611 (1) (101 S. E. 716).

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., coneur. Blaloclc & Blalock, for plaintiff in error. Parker & Parker, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E. 790, 33 Ga. App. 312, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-co-v-calhoun-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack