Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Rheney v. Anderson

Rheney v. Anderson

96 S.E. 217, 22 Ga. App. 417, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 373
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 12, 1918
Docket9075, 9093
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 96 S.E. 217 (Rheney v. Anderson) 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
Rheney v. Anderson, 96 S.E. 217, 22 Ga. App. 417, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinions

Luke, J.

1. Where a negotiable promissory note purports to have been given -“for value received,” and suit is brought thereon by the payee, the maker may plead, and prove by parol, that the note was executeá without consideration as between the parties, and for the sole purpose of enabling the payee to indorse 'it to a third person as collateral security for a debt which the payee desired to contract and which he promised to pay without assistance from the maker of the note. Such a note is a mere accommodation paper, and, while in the hands of the person to be accommodated, is without consideration and binds nobody. [418]*418Civil Code (1910), § 3541; Hall v. Bank, 71 Ga. 715; Farrar v. Bank, 90 Ga. 331 (17 S. E. 87); Smith v. Downing Co., 21 Ga. App. 742 (95 S. E. 19); Brown v. Smedley, 136 Mich. 65 (98 N. W. 856); Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Boody, 165 Mo. 197 (65 S. W. 303). It would he otherwise if the note were in the hands of an indorsee who received it for value.

Decided June 12, 1918. Complaint; from Richmond superior court—Judge H. C. Hammond. July 14, 1917. William H. Fleming, for Rheney. Rogers & Knox, Samuel E. Myers, for Anderson.

2. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the plea setting up such a defense.

3. Under the conflicting evidence, it was for the jury to say whether or not the defendant had established her plea; and therefore the court * erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

•Judgment reversed on the main hill of exceptions, and affirmed on the cross-hill.

Wade, C. J., and - Jenkins, J., concur,

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

Related

Hambrick v. Bedsole
91 S.E.2d 205 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Mooney v. Boyd
71 S.E.2d 685 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
McCann v. Glynn Lumber Company
34 S.E.2d 839 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Gilleland v. Welch
34 S.E.2d 517 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Rentz v. King
17 S.E.2d 896 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Guffin v. Kelly
14 S.E.2d 50 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Miller v. Whitesburg Banking Co.
197 S.E. 906 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Carver v. Leach
185 S.E. 155 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
McLendon v. Lane
180 S.E. 746 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Ramsey-Fender Motor Co. v. Chapman
168 S.E. 92 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Norman v. State
160 S.E. 522 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Newsom v. Reynolds Chevrolet Co.
158 S.E. 763 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Fuller v. Fuller
152 S.E. 122 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Bowen v. Mobley
151 S.E. 667 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Robinson Co. v. Rice
148 S.E. 542 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
City Purchasing Co. v. Clough
142 S.E. 469 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Spells v. Swift & Co.
130 S.E. 593 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Brown v. Horn
122 S.E. 710 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Tootle v. Baker
115 S.E. 919 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Anderson v. Rheney
110 S.E. 164 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 S.E. 217, 22 Ga. App. 417, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rheney-v-anderson-gactapp-1918.