Tuxworth v. Barber

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tuxworth v. Barber

101 S.E. 715, 24 Ga. App. 609, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 963

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 16, 1919

Docket10683

StatusPublished

This text of 101 S.E. 715 (Tuxworth v. Barber) 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

Tuxworth v. Barber, 101 S.E. 715, 24 Ga. App. 609, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 963 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit upon a promissory note by a plaintiff who is the transferee of the note, where the defendant admits a prima facie case and assumes the burden of proving his defense that the plaintiff purchased the note with notice of an infirmity therein, the trial judge does 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 note 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.

2. The court properly excluded parol testimony as to the contents of a suit in the municipal court of Atlanta.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., concurs. Smith, J., disqualified.

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

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit upon a promissory note by a plaintiff who is the transferee of the note, where the defendant admits a prima facie case and assumes the burden of proving his defense that the plaintiff purchased the note with notice of an infirmity therein, the trial judge does 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 note 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.

2. The court properly excluded parol testimony as to the contents of a suit in the municipal court of Atlanta.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., concurs. Smith, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 715, 24 Ga. App. 609, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuxworth-v-barber-gactapp-1919.