Legal Opinion
Hemphill v. Simmons
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided December 16, 1969No. 44657PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Quillian, Judge.
The main basis on which the defendant predicates his contention that the direction of the verdict was correct is that the evidence failed to show that the plaintiff had any title or right of action on the note in question. With this contention we cannot agree.
It is true that in order to sustain an action on a promissory note payable to the order of a third party it must be affirmatively shown: “that the note has been transferred to the plaintiff by written indorsement or for'value without indorsement.” Atlas Finance Co. v. McDonald, 110 Ga. App. 32 (2) (137 SE2d 762). See Code…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- People's National Bank v. ClevelandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Lewis v. PattersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Matson v. CroweSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
- Jordan v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
- Overcash v. First National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Colodny v. Dominion Mortgage & Realty TrustCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
- Bonner v. Wachovia Mortgage Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
- Union Commerce Leasing Corp. v. Beef 'N Burgundy, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
- Bobbitt v. Firestone Tire & Rubber CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
- Clay v. ClaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1997