Pullen v. Powell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pullen v. Powell

132 S.E. 922, 35 Ga. App. 333, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 707

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 20, 1926

Docket16959

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 S.E. 922 (Pullen v. Powell) 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

Pullen v. Powell, 132 S.E. 922, 35 Ga. App. 333, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 707 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “When a negotiable paper is sued on by a holder or indorsee, received under dishonor, no set-off is allowed against the original payee, except such as is in some way connected with the debt sued on, or the transaction out of which it sprung.” Civil Code (1910), § 4344; Polk v. Stewart, 144 Ga. 337 (87 S. E. 21) ; Kinard v. Sanford, 64 Ga. 630. Accordingly, where the testimony for the defendant showed that the claim which he sought to set off against the transferee’s action upon a note given to the original payee for borrowed money consisted of a demand against the original payee for services subsequently rendered under an independent contract, in no way connected with the transaction in which the note was given, the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant.

2. While it is true that “if the plaintiff sues for the benefit of another person, a set-off against the beneficiary shall be allowed,” a verdict for the defendant in the instant case could not be directed on this principle of law, since the evidence for the defendant, when taken by itself, did not conclusively show that the plaintiff was not the owner of the note assigned to him, and the plaintiff on his part testified that he in fact became by purchase the holder and owner of the note sued on.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. A.'L. Miller, for plaintiff. E. L. Smith, for defendant.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “When a negotiable paper is sued on by a holder or indorsee, received under dishonor, no set-off is allowed against the original payee, except such as is in some way connected with the debt sued on, or the transaction out of which it sprung.” Civil Code (1910), § 4344; Polk v. Stewart, 144 Ga. 337 (87 S. E. 21) ; Kinard v. Sanford, 64 Ga. 630. Accordingly, where the testimony for the defendant showed that the claim which he sought to set off against the transferee’s action upon a note given to the original payee for borrowed money consisted of a demand against the original payee for services subsequently rendered under an independent contract, in no way connected with the transaction in which the note was given, the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant.

2. While it is true that “if the plaintiff sues for the benefit of another person, a set-off against the beneficiary shall be allowed,” a verdict for the defendant in the instant case could not be directed on this principle of law, since the evidence for the defendant, when taken by itself, did not conclusively show that the plaintiff was not the owner of the note assigned to him, and the plaintiff on his part testified that he in fact became by purchase the holder and owner of the note sued on.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. A.'L. Miller, for plaintiff. E. L. Smith, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E. 922, 35 Ga. App. 333, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullen-v-powell-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack