Legal Opinion
Hobbs v. Chemical National Bank
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided December 2, 1895PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Complaint on note. Before Judge Sweat. Glynn superior court. May term, 1895.
1Opinion of the Court
Simmons, Chief Justice.
1. This was an action by the Chemical National Bank against Mayer, as surviving partner, and Hobbs & Tucker, upon a promissory note made by Mayer & Ullman and payable to the order of Hobbs & Tucker at the Chemical National Bank, which note the plaintiff alleged had been discounted by it in the due course of its banking business. The note was endorsed as follows: “Pay to the order of W. J. Quinlan Jr., cashier. Hobbs & Tucker.” There was no further endorsement, nor was there any averment in the declaration that W. J. Quinlan Jr. was cashier of the plaintiff, or that the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Baldwin v. Bank of NewburySupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- Peabody Ins. v. Wilson & BeasleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- Collins v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1854
- Walker v. Bank of AugustaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1847
3Cited by5 opinions
- Patton v. Bank of LaFayetteSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Greenfield v. StoutSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Delray Incorporated v. ReddickSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
- Roush v. First National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Shingler v. FurstSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933