Cothran v. Cunningham
Supreme Court of Georgia
Complaint, in Floyd superior court. Tried before Judge Hammond, February Term, 1859. This was an action by C. F. Cunningham, as endorsee, against W. S. Cothran & Co., endorsers, on the following promissory note: $357 00. Nov. 17, 1857. Thirty days after date we promise to pay to the order of ~W. S. Cothran & Co., three hundred and fifty-seven dollars, value received, payable at the office of W. E. Lucy & Co., 'at Gadsden, Ala. [Signed.] W. E. LHCY & CO. Endorsed, “W. S.…
Read the full summary
Complaint, in Floyd superior court. Tried before Judge Hammond, February Term, 1859. This was an action by C. F. Cunningham, as endorsee, against W. S. Cothran & Co., endorsers, on the following promissory note: $357 00. Nov. 17, 1857. Thirty days after date we promise to pay to the order of ~W. S. Cothran & Co., three hundred and fifty-seven dollars, value received, payable at the office of W. E. Lucy & Co., 'at Gadsden, Ala. [Signed.] W. E. LHCY & CO. Endorsed, “W. S. Cothran & .Co.” W. S-. Cothran, one of the defendants, testified that he did not know anything about the endorsement until…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
McDonald, J.,
delivering the opinion.
Indorsers of promissory notes given for negotiation, or intended to be negotiated at any chartered bank, or deposited in any chartered bank for collection, are entitled to notice of the demand and non-payment of said notes before they arc liable on their endorsements. Cobb’s new Dig., 594. The note sued on is not payable at a bank, and it does not appear on its face that it was given for negotiation, or intended to be negotiated at a chartered bank, or that it was deposited in such bank for collection. But, notwithstanding it does not so appear…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Randolph v. FlemingSupreme Court of Georgia · 1877