Legal Opinion

McDonald & Griffin v. Horton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 5, 1917No. 8459PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Complaint; from city court of Bainbridge—Judge Spooner. January 11, 1917.

1Opinion of the CourtBboyles, P. J.

1. In a suit upon a promissory note, brought by the transferee and holder of the note, where the note itself shows that it was transferred to the plaintiff for value and before its maturity, the indorsements and transfers are presumed to be genuine and the dates thereof correct; and a plea which fails to deny' unequivocally the genuineness of the indorsements and transfers on the note, or the dates thereof, is insufficient as a plea of non est factum. Lester v. McIntosh, 101 Ga. 675 (29 S. E. 7) ; Taylor v. Johnson, 18 Ga. App. 161 (89 S. E. 77).

2. Where such a note as is described above is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Haug v. RileySupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
  2. Jones v. Dannenberg Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1900
  3. Lester v. McIntoshSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
  4. Rhodes v. BeallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884
  5. Taylor v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lancaster v. RalstonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
  2. Bank of Cumming v. BruceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
  3. Bank of Cumming v. MasonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918

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

Powered by the Exa API