Boit & McKenzie v. Whitehead
Supreme Court of Georgia
Promissory notes. Principal and agent. Before Judge Hill. Houston Superior Court. May Term, 1873. Boit & McKenzie brought complaint against Z. T. Whitehead, as principal, and S. W. J. Harris, as security, for $360 20, and $36 02, counsel fees, besides interest on the following instrument: “ $260 20. “Fort Valley, May 3d, 1871. “For value received, we promise to pay, on or before the 10th of November, 1871, to the order of Boit & McKenzie, at their office in Savannah,…
Read the full summary
Promissory notes. Principal and agent. Before Judge Hill. Houston Superior Court. May Term, 1873. Boit & McKenzie brought complaint against Z. T. Whitehead, as principal, and S. W. J. Harris, as security, for $360 20, and $36 02, counsel fees, besides interest on the following instrument: “ $260 20. “Fort Valley, May 3d, 1871. “For value received, we promise to pay, on or before the 10th of November, 1871, to the order of Boit & McKenzie, at their office in Savannah, Georgia, the sum of $360 20, for six tons of sea-fowl guano, furnished to enable us to carry on our business of planting in…
1Opinion of the Court
McCay, Judge.
The plaintiffs were the original payees of the note. True, as it seems, they were not, in fact, the owners, and yet it ivas with them, in their own name, that the defendant contracted. We think it very far-fetched to set up that they are innocent purchasers. They bought with their eyes open; they knew what the note was given for; they knew there was an express *78warranty; they were the agents, according to their own showing, in the whole matter, and in taking the note they contracted in their own name. They must take the fate of their principal. We can hardly see, even if the note…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Miller v. CampbellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
- Denver Suburban Homes & Water Co. v. FugateSupreme Court of Colorado · 1917
- Phillips v. LoydSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889