Legal Opinion
Hall v. Westmoreland, Hall & Bryan
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided May 21, 1971No. 46067PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Quillian, Judge.
The plaintiffs contend that the trial judge properly granted their motion for summary judgment since Exhibit "A” was a negotiable instrument and that they were holders in due course to whom any defenses interposed by the defendant were not applicable.
One of the requirements of a negotiable instrument is that it contain the time honored "words of negotiability,” such as pay to the order of or pay to bearer. This was inherent in our law prior to the enactment of the Commercial Code. See Pryor v. American Trust &c. Co., 15 Ga. App. 822, 825 (84 SE 312); Metropolitan Discount Co.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pryor v. American Trust & Banking Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Hawkins v. CollierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- S. & S. Builders, Inc. v. Equitable Investment Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1964
- Purcell v. Armour Packing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Herrington v. HerringtonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1944
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. CreasySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. CreasySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Cobb Bank & Trust Co. v. American Manufacturers Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1978
- Fedeli v. UAP/Ga. Ag. Chem., Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1999
- Brown v. McGriffCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2002
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.