Walden v. Downing Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Walden v. Downing Co.

61 S.E. 1127, 4 Ga. App. 534, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 469

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 25, 1908

Docket1154

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 61 S.E. 1127 (Walden v. Downing 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

Walden v. Downing Co., 61 S.E. 1127, 4 Ga. App. 534, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 469 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The case is controlled by the principles and authorities cited in the headnotes. The ease as presented here is, that Mrs. Walden, for valuable consideration, executed a negotiable promissory note to her daughter Mrs. Thomas, who indorsed it in blank and deposited it with her husband for safe-keeping. A partner in business of Mr. Thomas, in some manner, without the consent of Mrs. Thomas, secured possession of the note, again indorsed it in blank, and transferred' it to the Downing Company, as collateral security for a pre-existing debt which he owed them. The evidence upon the question of bona tides of the Downing Company was sufficient, prima facie, to carry the burden resting upon them, under the principles stated in the second headnote. The evidence of the defendant on this subject, including that offered, but rejected by the court, was not sufficient to overcome this prima facie case. On this point see Shaw v. R. Co., 101 U. S. 564 (25 L. ed. 892). Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

The case is controlled by the principles and authorities cited in the headnotes. The ease as presented here is, that Mrs. Walden, for valuable consideration, executed a negotiable promissory note to her daughter Mrs. Thomas, who indorsed it in blank and deposited it with her husband for safe-keeping. A partner in business of Mr. Thomas, in some manner, without the consent of Mrs. Thomas, secured possession of the note, again indorsed it in blank, and transferred' it to the Downing Company, as collateral security for a pre-existing debt which he owed them. The evidence upon the question of bona tides of the Downing Company was sufficient, prima facie, to carry the burden resting upon them, under the principles stated in the second headnote. The evidence of the defendant on this subject, including that offered, but rejected by the court, was not sufficient to overcome this prima facie case. On this point see Shaw v. R. Co., 101 U. S. 564 (25 L. ed. 892). Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 S.E. 1127, 4 Ga. App. 534, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walden-v-downing-co-gactapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack