Preston v. Dozier

68 S.E. 793, 135 Ga. 25, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 398
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 10, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 68 S.E. 793 (Preston v. Dozier) 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
Preston v. Dozier, 68 S.E. 793, 135 Ga. 25, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 398 (Ga. 1910).

Opinion

Holden, J.

1. Where a bank to which a cheek on another bank is presented for payment requires the payee to procure a third person to indorse the check, and this is done, and the bank to which the check is presented then cashes it for the payee on the faith of this indorsement, which is neither necessary nor proper for the transmission of title to the check [26]*26in the negotiation thereof, but is for the sole purpose of guaranteeing payment of the cheek, such indorser becomes a surety thereon. Sibley v. Bank, 97 Ga. 126 (25 S. E. 470) ; Atkinson v. Bennet, 103 Ga. 508 (30 S. E. 599) ; Buck v. Bank, 104 Ga. 660 (30 S. E. 872) ; Ridley v. Hightower, 112 Ga. 476 (37 S. E. 733).

August 10, 1910. Complaint. Before Judge Reagan. Butts superior court. February 18, 1909. John R. L. Smith, for plaintiff in error. Henry M. Fletcher, contra.

(a) In order to bind a^ surety, it is not necessary to give him the notice of dishonor and protest provided for by Civil Code, § 3688, in respect to indorsers of promissory notes and bills of exchange. Sibley v. Bank, supra.

2. Even if the cashier who paid the check, as agent of the defendant in error, who was a banker, was without 'authority to pay it with the funds of his principal, his action in so doing was ratified by the defendant in error, who brought suit on the check in his own name.

■3. Under the pleadings; and the undisputed evidence showing that the defendant in error through his agent cashed the check, on which the plaintiff in error was surety, and which was never paid, there was no error in directing a verdict against the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Beck, J., absent, The other Justices concur.

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

Related

Hopkins Automobile Equipment Co. v. Lyon
1 S.E.2d 460 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Fleischer Knitting Mills Inc. v. Union Dry Goods Store
199 S.E. 646 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Mayfield v. Equitable Trust Co.
295 F. 109 (Fourth Circuit, 1924)
Mendel v. Converse & Co.
118 S.E. 586 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Tennille Banking Co. v. Ward
116 S.E. 347 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Chandler v. Bank of Waynesboro
113 S.E. 25 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Washington Loan & Banking Co. v. Holliday
107 S.E. 370 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 S.E. 793, 135 Ga. 25, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preston-v-dozier-ga-1910.