Morgan v. Cedar Rapids National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morgan v. Cedar Rapids National Bank

67 S.E. 1048, 7 Ga. App. 699, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 476

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 12, 1910

Docket2253

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 S.E. 1048 (Morgan v. Cedar Rapids 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

Morgan v. Cedar Rapids National Bank, 67 S.E. 1048, 7 Ga. App. 699, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 476 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, O. J.

1. The holder of a negotiable note is presumed to be such bona fide and for value. Civil Code, § 3696. If this presumption stood alone, there were some circumstances from which the jury might have inferred a rebuttal; but the undisputed evidence of the payee of the note and of the holder thereof proved that the latter was a bona fide purchaser for value and before maturity; and therefore, as against the holder, the maker could not plead failure of consideration, and the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Civil Code, [700]*700§3694; Wilson v. Carter, 4 Ga. App. 350 (61 S. E. 494); Harrell v. National Bank, 128 Ga. 504 (57 S. E. 869).

Complaint; from city court of Bainbridge- — -Judge Harrell. September 21, 1909. i

Submitted December 21, 1909. Decided May 12, 1910. A. E. Thornton, for plaintiff in error. Donalson & Donalson, contra.

2. Assignments of error not referred to in the brief submitted, or in the argument, will be treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, O. J.

1. The holder of a negotiable note is presumed to be such bona fide and for value. Civil Code, § 3696. If this presumption stood alone, there were some circumstances from which the jury might have inferred a rebuttal; but the undisputed evidence of the payee of the note and of the holder thereof proved that the latter was a bona fide purchaser for value and before maturity; and therefore, as against the holder, the maker could not plead failure of consideration, and the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Civil Code, [700]*700§3694; Wilson v. Carter, 4 Ga. App. 350 (61 S. E. 494); Harrell v. National Bank, 128 Ga. 504 (57 S. E. 869).

Complaint; from city court of Bainbridge- — -Judge Harrell. September 21, 1909. i

Submitted December 21, 1909. Decided May 12, 1910. A. E. Thornton, for plaintiff in error. Donalson & Donalson, contra.

2. Assignments of error not referred to in the brief submitted, or in the argument, will be treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E. 1048, 7 Ga. App. 699, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-cedar-rapids-national-bank-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack