Pike v. First National Bank of Rome
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Townsend, Judge.
Whether or not the direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was error must be determined by whether or not the plaintiff is a holder in due course or only an agent of its depositor, for the reason that the defendant Pike, the maker of the cheeks, had a good defense against Dixie Auto Auction and Andrews Motor Company based on failure of consideration which, if it might be urged against the bank, would defeat the action. (Code § 14-508). Code § 14-502 provides: “A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (1) That it…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Burton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Fourth National Bank v. MayerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
- Bailie v. Augusta Savings BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Freeman v. Exchange BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Cronheim v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Pazol v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- Citizens National Bank of Englewood v. Fort Lee Savings & Loan AssociationNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965
- Citizens Nat. Bank v. FT. LEE S & L ASS'NNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965
- Coastal Plains Trucking Co. v. Thomas County Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
- Schnitger v. BackusCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.