Legal Opinion

Seamans v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 5, 1977No. 53631PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Lanier v. KrzywickiCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
  2. Pitillo v. DemetryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
  3. Northside Building & Investment Co. v. Finance Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Zagoria v. DuBose Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
  2. Lester v. GrovesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
  3. Foskey v. International Realty Sales & Exchanges, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API