Edenfield v. Smith
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
1. The conversion by the holder of collateral pledged to secure a promissory note does not operate “as a cancellation of the note.” The remedy of the maker or the party aggrieved by the conversion may be an action of trover or a suit or counterclaim for damages. Bennett v. Tucker, 32 Ga. App. 288 (123 S. E. 165).
2. Where the holder of a promissory note, with which certain corporate stocks were pledged as collateral, brought suit upon the note, and where the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had converted the collateral and that the conversion thereof “operated as a cancellation of the note…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fisher v. George S. Jones Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Bennett v. Tucker & PenningtonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Blaylock v. Walker County BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927
3Cited by2 opinions
- Willis v. Seiberling Rubber Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
- Kimzey v. MickelSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940