Security Finance Co. v. Herrin Drug Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Security Finance Co. v. Herrin Drug Co.

140 S.E. 923, 37 Ga. App. 518, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 388

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 1927

Docket18502

StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E. 923 (Security Finance Co. v. Herrin Drug Co.) 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

Security Finance Co. v. Herrin Drug Co., 140 S.E. 923, 37 Ga. App. 518, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 388 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Herrin Drug Company purchased from Brenard Manufacturing Company a combination radio and graphophone, and gave promissory notes therefor. These notes were indorsed by the' original payee to Security Finance Company, which sued on them. The defendant pleaded that the articles sold were worthless, and that the plaintiff was not an innocent purchaser for value of the notes. The jury found for the defendant. Held, that, though slight, there was some evidence to sustain the plea; that the special assignments disclose no reversible error; and that the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Herrin Drug Company purchased from Brenard Manufacturing Company a combination radio and graphophone, and gave promissory notes therefor. These notes were indorsed by the' original payee to Security Finance Company, which sued on them. The defendant pleaded that the articles sold were worthless, and that the plaintiff was not an innocent purchaser for value of the notes. The jury found for the defendant. Held, that, though slight, there was some evidence to sustain the plea; that the special assignments disclose no reversible error; and that the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 923, 37 Ga. App. 518, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-finance-co-v-herrin-drug-co-gactapp-1927.