Mizell Live Stock Co. v. Sutton

98 S.E. 102, 23 Ga. App. 270, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 77
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 15, 1919·No. 9916·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Where a purchaser of a promissory note has actual notice that it was given for the purchase of stock in an incorporated company, ' sold by an agent, traveling salesman, or promoter, such notice is just as effective to put the purchaser of the note on notice that he.is taking it subject to the equities existing between the original parties thereto as if the consideration of the note had been expressed in the face of the note. See Acts 1912, p. 153; Park’s Code § 4294 (b) ; Heard v. Nat. Bank, 143 Ga. 48 (84 S. E. 129).

2. The charge of the court, when read as a whole, is not subject to the criticisms urged; the evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. For none of the reasons assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

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

Mizell Live Stock Co. v. Sutton, 98 S.E. 102, 23 Ga. App. 270, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

98 S.E. 102 (Mizell Live Stock Co. v. Sutton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ferguson v. Bank of Dawson
179 S.E. 236 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Robb v. Cardoza
293 P. 851 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)