Legal Opinion

Pike v. First National Bank of Rome

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 14, 1959No. 37654PublishedCited by 13 opinions

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

  1. Burton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. Fourth National Bank v. MayerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
  3. Bailie v. Augusta Savings BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
  4. Freeman v. Exchange BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
  5. 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

  1. Pazol v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
  2. Citizens National Bank of Englewood v. Fort Lee Savings & Loan AssociationNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965
  3. Citizens Nat. Bank v. FT. LEE S & L ASS'NNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965
  4. Coastal Plains Trucking Co. v. Thomas County Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
  5. Schnitger v. BackusCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API