Swan-Edwards Co. v. Union Savings Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Swan-Edwards Co. v. Union Savings Bank

87 S.E. 825, 17 Ga. App. 572, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 790

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 27, 1916

Docket6507

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 825 (Swan-Edwards Co. v. Union Savings 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

Swan-Edwards Co. v. Union Savings Bank, 87 S.E. 825, 17 Ga. App. 572, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. A bank is presumed to know the signature of one of its depositors, and therefore can not recover from a bona fide holder for value money paid by the bank upon a cheek to which- the drawer’s signature was forged, unless it appears that the holder, by his own negligence, contributed to the success of the fraud practised, or his conduct had a tendency to mislead the drawee, which was itself free from fault. Woods v. Colony Bank, 114 Ga. 683 (2), 685 (40 S. E. 720, 56 L. R. A. 929); 2 Michie on Banks and Banking, § 147, p. 1196, and cases there cited. Any seeming conflict in principle between this ruling and the ruling in Woods v. Colony Bank, supra, disappears on examination of the particular facts in that, case.

2. The instructions of the court complained of which were in conflict with the foregoing ruling were erroneous; and the failure to give requested instructions which conformed it was also error. Judgment reversed.

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

Wade, J.

1. A bank is presumed to know the signature of one of its depositors, and therefore can not recover from a bona fide holder for value money paid by the bank upon a cheek to which- the drawer’s signature was forged, unless it appears that the holder, by his own negligence, contributed to the success of the fraud practised, or his conduct had a tendency to mislead the drawee, which was itself free from fault. Woods v. Colony Bank, 114 Ga. 683 (2), 685 (40 S. E. 720, 56 L. R. A. 929); 2 Michie on Banks and Banking, § 147, p. 1196, and cases there cited. Any seeming conflict in principle between this ruling and the ruling in Woods v. Colony Bank, supra, disappears on examination of the particular facts in that, case.

2. The instructions of the court complained of which were in conflict with the foregoing ruling were erroneous; and the failure to give requested instructions which conformed it was also error. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 825, 17 Ga. App. 572, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swan-edwards-co-v-union-savings-bank-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack