Legal Opinion

Stephens v. Meyer

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 5, 1964No. 22356PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

This case involves portions of the negotiable instruments law (Ga. L. 1924, p. 126; Code §§ 14-101 through 14-1707). While the 1924 Act purports to cover the subject of negotiable instruments, and in different portions thereof it speaks of “overdue” instruments, it nowhere says what “overdue” means. Section 4292 of the Code of 1910 provides that “Bills, notes, or other paper, payable on demand, are due immediately.” This law is. not contradicted or changed by the 1924 Act and remains the law although omitted from the 1933 Code. Supporting this ruling, see Newcomb v.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hotel Lanier Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
  2. Newcomb v. Niskey's Lake Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1940
  3. Exchange Bank v. OdumCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
  4. Brinson Railway Co. v. Exchange BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
  5. Stewart v. Finance Co. of the SouthCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Henson v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  2. Henson v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  3. State ex rel. Johnston v. MalloryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API