Patterson & Son v. Barnett National Bank

Supreme Court of Georgia

Patterson & Son v. Barnett National Bank

103 S.E. 224, 150 Ga. 241, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 125

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1920

DocketNo. 1660

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 224 (Patterson & Son v. Barnett National Bank) 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

Patterson & Son v. Barnett National Bank, 103 S.E. 224, 150 Ga. 241, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 125 (Ga. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

1. Under the ruling in the case of Sutton v. Gunn, 86 Ga. 652 (12 S. E. 979), the provision in section 7 of the act approved August 22, 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 240), amendatory of the act of 1905, establishing the city court of Thomasville, is not unconstitutional 'as being in violation of paragraph 7 of section 4 of article 6 of the constitution of the State of Georgia. The ruling made in the case cited has been followed in later cases, and upon formal request to review and .reverse that decision this court declines to do so.

2, 3. Had the notes in this case been sued upon by the payee, the allegations of fraud made in the plea would have been sufficient to withstand the demurrer. Without considering whether or not the execution of such notes to the Naval Stores Company was within the scope of the partnership business, the allegations show that the representations by which the notes were obtained were false and fraudulent, and that the notes were without consideration. But if the bank is a bona fide holder for value, the fraud on the part of the payee, the Naval Stores Company in obtaining the notes, and the fact that the notes were without consideration, will not avail the defendants in this suit by an innocent holder, if it is such. An elaboration of this proposition is unnecessary. See Civil Code, § 4286 et seq., as to the rights of bona fide holders of negotiable instruments; Freeman v. Ross, 15 Ga. 252; Haskins v. Throne, 101 Ga. 126 (28 S. E. 611); Davis v. Howell Cotton Co., 101 Ga. 128 (28 S. E. 612).

Another question is whether, under the allegations of the plea and answer, the plaintiff bank is divested of the character of a bona fide holder who took the notes for value before due. Had a special demurrer been filed to this part of the plea, the court, no doubt, would have required the pleader to more specifically set forth the facts upon which he depends to show that the transfer [245]*245of the notes was made to settle and suppress a criminal prosecution; but there is no special demurrer calling for a more specific statement of the facts referred to, and the demurrer to this part of the plea is as general as the allegations in the plea; and as against a general demurrer we are of the opinion that the allegations of the plea are sufficient.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

1. Under the ruling in the case of Sutton v. Gunn, 86 Ga. 652 (12 S. E. 979), the provision in section 7 of the act approved August 22, 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 240), amendatory of the act of 1905, establishing the city court of Thomasville, is not unconstitutional 'as being in violation of paragraph 7 of section 4 of article 6 of the constitution of the State of Georgia. The ruling made in the case cited has been followed in later cases, and upon formal request to review and .reverse that decision this court declines to do so.

2, 3. Had the notes in this case been sued upon by the payee, the allegations of fraud made in the plea would have been sufficient to withstand the demurrer. Without considering whether or not the execution of such notes to the Naval Stores Company was within the scope of the partnership business, the allegations show that the representations by which the notes were obtained were false and fraudulent, and that the notes were without consideration. But if the bank is a bona fide holder for value, the fraud on the part of the payee, the Naval Stores Company in obtaining the notes, and the fact that the notes were without consideration, will not avail the defendants in this suit by an innocent holder, if it is such. An elaboration of this proposition is unnecessary. See Civil Code, § 4286 et seq., as to the rights of bona fide holders of negotiable instruments; Freeman v. Ross, 15 Ga. 252; Haskins v. Throne, 101 Ga. 126 (28 S. E. 611); Davis v. Howell Cotton Co., 101 Ga. 128 (28 S. E. 612).

Another question is whether, under the allegations of the plea and answer, the plaintiff bank is divested of the character of a bona fide holder who took the notes for value before due. Had a special demurrer been filed to this part of the plea, the court, no doubt, would have required the pleader to more specifically set forth the facts upon which he depends to show that the transfer [245]*245of the notes was made to settle and suppress a criminal prosecution; but there is no special demurrer calling for a more specific statement of the facts referred to, and the demurrer to this part of the plea is as general as the allegations in the plea; and as against a general demurrer we are of the opinion that the allegations of the plea are sufficient.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 224, 150 Ga. 241, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-son-v-barnett-national-bank-ga-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack