Bank of Commerce v. Barrett, Carter & Co.
Supreme Court of Georgia
Assumpsit. Motion for new trial. Decided by Judge Snead. City Court of Augusta, May Term, 1868. The Bank of Commerce sued Barrett, Carter & Co., as makers, and T. C. Barrett, as endorser 'on a promissory note, in these words : “$500: Attsttsta, Ga.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Motion for new trial. Decided by Judge Snead. City Court of Augusta, May Term, 1868. The Bank of Commerce sued Barrett, Carter & Co., as makers, and T. C. Barrett, as endorser 'on a promissory note, in these words : “$500: Attsttsta, Ga. Aug. 5, 1866. One hundred and twenty days after date, we promise to pay to the order of Thomas G. Barrett, five hundred dollars, in consolidation of National Express and Transportation Company, value received, with interest after thirty' days. Barrett, Carter & Co. (Endorsed) T. G. Barrett. J. V. H. Allbit, Treasurer.” At the same time, it sued…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCay, J.
This was a suit upon a promissory note. The note expressed upon its face, to be “ to pay to the order of Thos. G. Barrett, five hundred dollars, “ in consolidation of National Express and Transportation Company, value received.” On the trial, the Court charged the jury that the words on the face of the note were notice, to the party buying it, of the consideration, and sufficient to put him up on inquiry as to whether or not the consideration had failed.
*129The bona fide purchaser of a note not due, who has no notice of a failure of consideration, cannot be defeated by snch a plea. Notice of the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- New v. WalkerIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Hudson v. BestSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Bank of Sampson v. HatcherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Buchanan v. WrenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1895
- Simmons v. CouncilCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.