Talladega Mercantile Co. v. Robinson, Boylston & McKeldin Co.

22 S.E. 1003, 96 Ga. 815
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 29, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 S.E. 1003 (Talladega Mercantile Co. v. Robinson, Boylston & McKeldin Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Talladega Mercantile Co. v. Robinson, Boylston & McKeldin Co., 22 S.E. 1003, 96 Ga. 815 (Ga. 1895).

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. An ordinary draft drawn by a creditor upon his debtor, and not made payable out of any particular fund, does not, before acceptance, operate as an assignment to the drawee, legal or equitable, of money due by account from the drawee to the drawer of the draft. Baer v. English & Co., 84 Ga. 403; Haas v. Old National Bank, 91 Ga. 307; Jones v. Glover, 93 Ga. 484; Georgia Seed, Co. et al. v. Talmadge & Co., 96 Ga. 254.

2. The evidence introduced in this case to show acceptance was entirely insufficient for that purpose, and the court therefore erred in adjudging that any part of the fund in controversy should be paid to the payees of the draft.

3. In other respects, no error appears in the judgment rendered by the trial judge, who tried the case without the intervention of a jury. Judgment reversed in part, and in part affirmed.

Hoskinson & Harris and Halsted Smith, for plaintiff. C. A. Thornwell, J. W. Ewing and Foucieé & Fouché, contra.

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

Related

McIntire v. Raskin
161 S.E. 363 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Salzburger Bank v. Standard Oil Co.
161 S.E. 584 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 S.E. 1003, 96 Ga. 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talladega-mercantile-co-v-robinson-boylston-mckeldin-co-ga-1895.