Legal Opinion
Bennett v. Cannon
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided October 13, 1966No. 42013PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Bell, Presiding Judge.
The note was drawn payable “to the order of Henry L. de Give, Attorney for R. 0. Cannon, Jacob B. Fannin and Dr. Charles F. Goosby” and was not indorsed by de Give to plaintiffs. Defendant contends that the _ amended petition failed to state a cause of action, because plaintiffs were not proper parties to sue on the note. This contention is without merit. Code Ann. § 109A-3—117 provides: “An instrument made payable to a named person with the addition of words describing him (a) as agent or officer of a specified person is payable to his principal but the agent or officer…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Reeves Tractor & Implement Co. v. BarrowCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. CrosbyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
- Pharr v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
- Rodgers v. FurseSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
3Cited by3 opinions
- McRae, Stegall, Peek, Harman, Smith & Manning, LLP v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2012
- Nodvin v. FabianCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
- McRae, Stegall, Peek, Harman v. Ga Farm Bureau MutCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2012