Pynetree Paper Co. v. Wilkinson County Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pynetree Paper Co. v. Wilkinson County Bank

100 S.E. 753, 24 Ga. App. 260, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 536

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 10, 1919

Docket10525

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 753 (Pynetree Paper Co. v. Wilkinson County 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

Pynetree Paper Co. v. Wilkinson County Bank, 100 S.E. 753, 24 Ga. App. 260, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 536 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, C. J.

1. The holder can not sue the drawee on a promise made to accept an existing bill, where the promise was made to the drawer of the bill after it had passed into the hands of the holder, and where the money sued for was paid or advanced by the holder before the promise was made, and not upon the faith of the promise. 8 Corpus Juris, 315, 316, § 485, and authorities cited in note 74; Lugrue v. Woodruff, 29 Ga. 648, 650; 7 Cyc. 766; Parrish v. Taggart-Delph Lumber Co. 11 Ga. App. 772 (76 S. E. 153); Coolidge v. Payson, 2 Wheat. 66 4 L. ed. 185); Exchange Bank v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37 (9 Am. R. 7); Carr v. National Bank, 107 Mass. 45 (9 Am. R. 6).

2. The amended petition, construed as a whole and most strongly against the pleader, clearly shows that the only money advanced by the plaintiff bank to the drawer of the draft was paid before the promise of the drawee to accept the draft was made, and that it was not paid on the faith of the promise. The petition, therefore, failed to set out a cause of action, and the court erred in overruling the general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Bboyles, C. J.

1. The holder can not sue the drawee on a promise made to accept an existing bill, where the promise was made to the drawer of the bill after it had passed into the hands of the holder, and where the money sued for was paid or advanced by the holder before the promise was made, and not upon the faith of the promise. 8 Corpus Juris, 315, 316, § 485, and authorities cited in note 74; Lugrue v. Woodruff, 29 Ga. 648, 650; 7 Cyc. 766; Parrish v. Taggart-Delph Lumber Co. 11 Ga. App. 772 (76 S. E. 153); Coolidge v. Payson, 2 Wheat. 66 4 L. ed. 185); Exchange Bank v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37 (9 Am. R. 7); Carr v. National Bank, 107 Mass. 45 (9 Am. R. 6).

2. The amended petition, construed as a whole and most strongly against the pleader, clearly shows that the only money advanced by the plaintiff bank to the drawer of the draft was paid before the promise of the drawee to accept the draft was made, and that it was not paid on the faith of the promise. The petition, therefore, failed to set out a cause of action, and the court erred in overruling the general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 753, 24 Ga. App. 260, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pynetree-paper-co-v-wilkinson-county-bank-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack