Geiger Finance Co. v. Graham
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Presiding Judge.
The pleadings showed that a defense existed. Plaintiff therefore had the burden of establishing that it was a holder in due course. Code Ann. § 109A-3 — 307 (3); Pitillo v. Demetry, 112 Ga. App. 643 (145 SE2d 792). A holder in due course is one who takes a negotiable instrument in good faith, for value and without notice of any claim or defense against it. Code Ann. § 109A-3 — 302 (1) (c).
The transcript does not clearly indicate the basis upon which the trial court ruled that plaintiff was not a holder in due course, nor is it necessary for our determination of the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Buffalo Industrial Bank v. De MarzioBuffalo City Court · 1937
- Colson & Sons v. EllisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Ledman v. GAC FINANCE CORPORATION OF BALTIMOREDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1965
- Pitillo v. DemetryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Universal CIT Credit Corp. v. HudgensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1962
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Ingram v. EarthmanCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998
- Reese v. Termplan, Inc., BoltonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
- Massey Ferguson Credit Corp. v. BiceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
- Household Finance Corp. v. MowdyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1973
- Jefferson v. Mitchell Select Furniture Co., Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1975
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.