Steinau v. Moody & Brewster
Supreme Court of Georgia
Complaint on note. Before Judge Reid. City court of Atlanta. March term, 1896. Moody & Brewster sued Steinau 'as maker and Westmoreland and Goldsmith as endorsers, October 16, 1894, upon a promissory note for $100 principal, dated July 25, 1894, payable at Rank, and due “sixty days fixed after date.” Defendants pleaded: (1) Denying that they are due plaintiffs $100 besides interest.
Read the full summary
Complaint on note. Before Judge Reid. City court of Atlanta. March term, 1896. Moody & Brewster sued Steinau 'as maker and Westmoreland and Goldsmith as endorsers, October 16, 1894, upon a promissory note for $100 principal, dated July 25, 1894, payable at Rank, and due “sixty days fixed after date.” Defendants pleaded: (1) Denying that they are due plaintiffs $100 besides interest. (2) It is true- that Steinau executed a note for $100, but untrue 'that the same contained the word “fixed” at the time it was signed or endorsed; and defendants believe that said word was written in the note hy…
1Opinion of the Court
Justice.
The note sued upon was payable at a bank. Civil Code, §3688 embraces two distinct features of legislation. It undertakes to- enumerate the instances in which an endorser upon a promissory note is entitled to- notice of protest and of non-payment alt maturity, and likewise to classify the commercial papers upon which days of grace shall be allowed. It provides that protest shall not be necessary except in the following instances: 1st, when a paper is made payable on its face at a bank or banker’s office; 2d, when it is discounted at a bank or banker’s office; 3d, when it is left at a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dalton City Co. v. HaddockSupreme Court of Georgia · 1875
- Cottingham v. WeekesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hall v. StoneCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1933