Davis v. National City Bank
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
Whether or not the payee of a negotiable promissory note may be a holder in due course under the 'negotiable-instruments law, is a question upon which the courts of the country are in serious conflict. As one writer suggests, however, in most of the situations involved in the cases sustaining a recovery on the theory that the payee was a holder in due course, the general law might have sustained a recovery. Professor Brannan and Professor Beutel, in their excellent work entitled “Brannan’s Negotiable Instruments Law” (5th ed.), have presented a strong, exhaustive, and strenuous argument in…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Quin v. SterneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1858
- Fourth National Bank v. LattimoreSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
3Cited by6 opinions
- Pendley v. Credit Equipment Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
- Brown v. ScalesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- Floyd Construction Co. v. StanleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
- MARKAN REALTY COMPANY v. KlarmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
- Meadows Mill Company v. YawnCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.