Legal Opinion

Davis v. National City Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 23, 1932No. 22404PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Quin v. SterneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1858
  2. Fourth National Bank v. LattimoreSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pendley v. Credit Equipment Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
  2. Brown v. ScalesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
  3. Floyd Construction Co. v. StanleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
  4. MARKAN REALTY COMPANY v. KlarmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
  5. Meadows Mill Company v. YawnCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API