Pidcock v. Merchants National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pidcock v. Merchants National Bank

66 S.E. 973, 7 Ga. App. 303, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 246

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 21, 1910

Docket1814

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 66 S.E. 973 (Pidcock v. Merchants 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

Pidcock v. Merchants National Bank, 66 S.E. 973, 7 Ga. App. 303, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 246 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The only substantial difference between this case and the case of Pidcock v. Crouch, this day decided, is that Crouch had transferred one of the notes given for the purchase of the stallion mentioned in that case, to the Merchants Bank of Lafayette, Indiana, and that the bank sued on it as innocent purchaser. The defense as to Morrison’s failure to sign the note is properly pleaded within the rule stated in that case. The defendants denied that the bank was a bona fide, innocent purchaser for value of the note, and set up that the plaintiff “did not pay a valuable consideration therefor, but is permitting itself to be used by J. Crouch & Son for the purpose of shielding said Crouch from the consequences of a legal fraud,” as set up in the plea. With this impeachment of the bona fides of the plaintiff’s holding, the defenses asserted were -open and available to the defendants. McDonald v. Mayer, 97 Ga. 281 (23 S. E. 72). Judgment reversed.

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

Powell, J.

The only substantial difference between this case and the case of Pidcock v. Crouch, this day decided, is that Crouch had transferred one of the notes given for the purchase of the stallion mentioned in that case, to the Merchants Bank of Lafayette, Indiana, and that the bank sued on it as innocent purchaser. The defense as to Morrison’s failure to sign the note is properly pleaded within the rule stated in that case. The defendants denied that the bank was a bona fide, innocent purchaser for value of the note, and set up that the plaintiff “did not pay a valuable consideration therefor, but is permitting itself to be used by J. Crouch & Son for the purpose of shielding said Crouch from the consequences of a legal fraud,” as set up in the plea. With this impeachment of the bona fides of the plaintiff’s holding, the defenses asserted were -open and available to the defendants. McDonald v. Mayer, 97 Ga. 281 (23 S. E. 72). Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.E. 973, 7 Ga. App. 303, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pidcock-v-merchants-national-bank-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack