Standard Pharmacy v. Commercial Security Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Standard Pharmacy v. Commercial Security Co.

101 S.E. 756, 24 Ga. App. 635, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 979

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 23, 1919

Docket10485

StatusPublished

This text of 101 S.E. 756 (Standard Pharmacy v. Commercial Security 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

Standard Pharmacy v. Commercial Security Co., 101 S.E. 756, 24 Ga. App. 635, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 979 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

In a suit upon promissory notes by a transferee of the notes, where the defendant admitted a prima facie case and assumed the burden of proving as its defense that the plaintiff purchased the notes with notice of an infirmity therein, the trial judge did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff upon the failure of the evidence to disclose any fact or circumstance within the knowledge of the plaintiff prior to the purchase of the notes which would put a prudent man on his guard as to any defense which the defendant might have had against the payee of the note.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

In a suit upon promissory notes by a transferee of the notes, where the defendant admitted a prima facie case and assumed the burden of proving as its defense that the plaintiff purchased the notes with notice of an infirmity therein, the trial judge did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff upon the failure of the evidence to disclose any fact or circumstance within the knowledge of the plaintiff prior to the purchase of the notes which would put a prudent man on his guard as to any defense which the defendant might have had against the payee of the note.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 756, 24 Ga. App. 635, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-pharmacy-v-commercial-security-co-gactapp-1919.