Prater v. Baughman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Prater v. Baughman

100 S.E. 647, 24 Ga. App. 298, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 584

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 20, 1919

Docket10443

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 647 (Prater v. Baughman) 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

Prater v. Baughman, 100 S.E. 647, 24 Ga. App. 298, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 584 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

The failure of an executory consideration in a promissory note is not a defense against a purchaser for value before maturity who had knowledge of the character of the consideration but who acquired the note before the consideration had actually failed, and who had no notice, constructive or otherwise, that the consideration would fail. Simmons v. Council, 5 Ga. App. 286 (63 S. E. 238); Whitten v. Railway Postal Clerks’ Investment Asso., 16 Ga. App. 685 (85 S. E. 973); Turner Lumber Co. v. Henderson Co., 20 Ga. App. 682, 689 (93 S. E. 301), and authorities cited. In the instant case no facts were developed from which the jury could find that the plaintiff (the transferee of the notes sued upon) had or could be charged with notice that the consideration would fail, and the trial judge, therefore, did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

There is nothing decided in Adams v. Hatfield, 17 Ga. App. 680 (87 S. E. 1099), or the other cases cited by counsel for plaintiff in error, as applied to their particular facts, in conflict with the rule laid down above.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

The failure of an executory consideration in a promissory note is not a defense against a purchaser for value before maturity who had knowledge of the character of the consideration but who acquired the note before the consideration had actually failed, and who had no notice, constructive or otherwise, that the consideration would fail. Simmons v. Council, 5 Ga. App. 286 (63 S. E. 238); Whitten v. Railway Postal Clerks’ Investment Asso., 16 Ga. App. 685 (85 S. E. 973); Turner Lumber Co. v. Henderson Co., 20 Ga. App. 682, 689 (93 S. E. 301), and authorities cited. In the instant case no facts were developed from which the jury could find that the plaintiff (the transferee of the notes sued upon) had or could be charged with notice that the consideration would fail, and the trial judge, therefore, did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

There is nothing decided in Adams v. Hatfield, 17 Ga. App. 680 (87 S. E. 1099), or the other cases cited by counsel for plaintiff in error, as applied to their particular facts, in conflict with the rule laid down above.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 647, 24 Ga. App. 298, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prater-v-baughman-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack