Roberson v. First National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Roberson v. First National Bank

88 S.E. 991, 18 Ga. App. 171, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 198

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 26, 1916

Docket6800

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 991 (Roberson v. First National 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

Roberson v. First National Bank, 88 S.E. 991, 18 Ga. App. 171, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 198 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. There was not only no evidence to rebut 'the presumption that the holder of the note sued upon was a bona fide holder for value (Civil Code, § 4288), but the uneontradicted testimony of the president of the plaintiff bank was that the bank bought the note before it was due, with no knowledge whatever of the circumstances under which the defendant’s indorsement of the note was obtained, and the undisputed evidence also explicitly denied that the person who obtained the indorsement had any authority to act for the bank in taking the note.

(a) The “fraud in the procurement of the note” which will let in defenses against the holder (Civil Code, § 4288) is fraud on his part (Robenson v. Vason, 37 Ga. 67; Hogan v. Moore, 48 Ga. 156), and has no reference to fraud in the contract out of which the instrument arose. Grooms v. Olliff, 93 Ga. 789 (20 S. B. 655); Pryor v. American Trust &c. Co., 15 Ga. App. 822, 826 (84 S. E. 312). Since there was no direct evidence nor any circumstance in proof sufficient to charge the holder with notice of the alleged fraud on the part of the original taker, there was nothing to support this defense.

[172]*172Decided May 26, 1916.

Complaint; from city court of Waynesboro — Judge. Davis. June 21, 1915.

Brinson & Hatcher, for plaintiff in error. E. V. Heath, contra.

2. In the light of the entire record, the court did not err in directing a verdict and in thereafter overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Wade, J.

1. There was not only no evidence to rebut 'the presumption that the holder of the note sued upon was a bona fide holder for value (Civil Code, § 4288), but the uneontradicted testimony of the president of the plaintiff bank was that the bank bought the note before it was due, with no knowledge whatever of the circumstances under which the defendant’s indorsement of the note was obtained, and the undisputed evidence also explicitly denied that the person who obtained the indorsement had any authority to act for the bank in taking the note.

(a) The “fraud in the procurement of the note” which will let in defenses against the holder (Civil Code, § 4288) is fraud on his part (Robenson v. Vason, 37 Ga. 67; Hogan v. Moore, 48 Ga. 156), and has no reference to fraud in the contract out of which the instrument arose. Grooms v. Olliff, 93 Ga. 789 (20 S. B. 655); Pryor v. American Trust &c. Co., 15 Ga. App. 822, 826 (84 S. E. 312). Since there was no direct evidence nor any circumstance in proof sufficient to charge the holder with notice of the alleged fraud on the part of the original taker, there was nothing to support this defense.

[172]*172Decided May 26, 1916.

Complaint; from city court of Waynesboro — Judge. Davis. June 21, 1915.

Brinson & Hatcher, for plaintiff in error. E. V. Heath, contra.

2. In the light of the entire record, the court did not err in directing a verdict and in thereafter overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 991, 18 Ga. App. 171, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-first-national-bank-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack