North Georgia Trust & Banking Co. v. Hulme

Court of Appeals of Georgia

North Georgia Trust & Banking Co. v. Hulme

134 S.E. 200, 35 Ga. App. 627, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1039

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 20, 1926

Docket17114

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 S.E. 200 (North Georgia Trust & Banking Co. v. Hulme) 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

North Georgia Trust & Banking Co. v. Hulme, 134 S.E. 200, 35 Ga. App. 627, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1039 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

“If one without notice sell to one with notice, the latter^ is protected, as otherwise a bona fide purchaser might be deprived of selling his property for full value.” Civil Code (1910), § 4535. Hancock v. Gumm, 151 Ga. 667 (2) (107 S. E. 872, 16 A. L. R. 1003) ; Branch v. Dublin and Laurens Bank, 21 Ga. App. 439 (94 S. E. 629). In the instant case, while it appears from the disputed testimony of the defendant that the plaintiff at one time had the note in its possession as custodian for the payee, and, while in such possession and prior to its maturity, was given notice by the defendant of the defense thereto, it is nevertheless true that the plaintiff’s proof that it subsequently ■ obtained the note from another bank whose entire assets it acquired was in no way disputed, this" fact being shown by the books of the other .bank introduced in evidence, as well as by the testimony of the plaintiff’s cashier. Since the.bank from which the plaintiff acquired its title ta the note purchased it prior to its maturity, and it not being contended that such other bank had any notice of the defense pleaded by the defendant, the principle of law set forth by the code section quoted above is controlling, and the verdict in favor of the defendant was unauthorized.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

“If one without notice sell to one with notice, the latter^ is protected, as otherwise a bona fide purchaser might be deprived of selling his property for full value.” Civil Code (1910), § 4535. Hancock v. Gumm, 151 Ga. 667 (2) (107 S. E. 872, 16 A. L. R. 1003) ; Branch v. Dublin and Laurens Bank, 21 Ga. App. 439 (94 S. E. 629). In the instant case, while it appears from the disputed testimony of the defendant that the plaintiff at one time had the note in its possession as custodian for the payee, and, while in such possession and prior to its maturity, was given notice by the defendant of the defense thereto, it is nevertheless true that the plaintiff’s proof that it subsequently ■ obtained the note from another bank whose entire assets it acquired was in no way disputed, this" fact being shown by the books of the other .bank introduced in evidence, as well as by the testimony of the plaintiff’s cashier. Since the.bank from which the plaintiff acquired its title ta the note purchased it prior to its maturity, and it not being contended that such other bank had any notice of the defense pleaded by the defendant, the principle of law set forth by the code section quoted above is controlling, and the verdict in favor of the defendant was unauthorized.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 200, 35 Ga. App. 627, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-georgia-trust-banking-co-v-hulme-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack