Seamans v. Miller
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Quillian, Presiding Judge.
Plaintiff brought an action on a promissory note in the amount of $15,000. The defendant denied liability, urging that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course of the note. The case was tried by agreement without a jury. The trial judge entered his order, containing findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which he held for the defendant. Plaintiff then appealed. Held:
The principal issue involves the plaintiffs status — was he a holder in due course within the meaning of the Ga. UCC § 109A-3—302 (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 252)?
The following facts are involved in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lanier v. KrzywickiCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Pitillo v. DemetryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Northside Building & Investment Co. v. Finance Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
3Cited by3 opinions
- Zagoria v. DuBose Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- Lester v. GrovesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- Foskey v. International Realty Sales & Exchanges, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1986