Automobile Financing Inc. v. Tatum

I dissent from the majority opinion, for the reason that in my opinion it is in direct conflict with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Universalist Convention v. Guest, 179 Ga. 168 (175 S. E. 466), wherein it was held that where the maker of a note pays money on it to a supposed agent of the holder, without requiring the production of the instrument, he assumes the burden of proving agency. Under the facts in this case the maker of the note did not carry this burden. There was no evidence that the Trust Company of Georgia was notified that the payments were made by Mrs. Tatum.…