Miles v. Bank of Harlem

Supreme Court of Georgia

Miles v. Bank of Harlem

77 S.E. 579, 139 Ga. 498, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 488

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 26, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 579 (Miles v. Bank of Harlem) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miles v. Bank of Harlem, 77 S.E. 579, 139 Ga. 498, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 488 (Ga. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, J.

The title of the holder of a note can not be inquired into, unless it is necessary for the protection of the defendant, or to let in-the defense which he seeks to make. Civil Code, § 4290.

(а) Accordingly, where a suit was brought on a negotiable promissory note payable to the order of a decedent and alleged to have been transferred for value by his administrator and indorsed by him. before due, 'there was no error in overruling a demurrer thereto.

(б) Where in such a case the defendant pleaded that' the note was given for the purchase-price of a certain horse, with a guaranty of its soundness and with the privilege in the purchaser to try it and return it if not found satisfactory,' and that after a trial the horse was found to be not sound 'and was tendered back to the vendor, but he refused to receive it, and that the plaintiff was not such a bona fide holder of the note as to cut off the right of defendant to plead failure of consideration; but where on the trial'no evidence was introduced on the part of the defendant to sustain such defense, and that introduced on behalf of the plaintiff showed that after making complaint about the horse the defendant retained the horse and signed the note on which suit was brought, there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices cúncur.

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

Beck, J.

The title of the holder of a note can not be inquired into, unless it is necessary for the protection of the defendant, or to let in-the defense which he seeks to make. Civil Code, § 4290.

(а) Accordingly, where a suit was brought on a negotiable promissory note payable to the order of a decedent and alleged to have been transferred for value by his administrator and indorsed by him. before due, 'there was no error in overruling a demurrer thereto.

(б) Where in such a case the defendant pleaded that' the note was given for the purchase-price of a certain horse, with a guaranty of its soundness and with the privilege in the purchaser to try it and return it if not found satisfactory,' and that after a trial the horse was found to be not sound 'and was tendered back to the vendor, but he refused to receive it, and that the plaintiff was not such a bona fide holder of the note as to cut off the right of defendant to plead failure of consideration; but where on the trial'no evidence was introduced on the part of the defendant to sustain such defense, and that introduced on behalf of the plaintiff showed that after making complaint about the horse the defendant retained the horse and signed the note on which suit was brought, there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices cúncur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 579, 139 Ga. 498, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miles-v-bank-of-harlem-ga-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack