Claxton Bank v. Smith
| Citation | 129 S.E. 142,34 Ga.App. 265 |
| Decision Date | 21 August 1925 |
| Docket Number | 16035. |
| Parties | CLAXTON BANK v. SMITH. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
A person is ordinarily presumed to know the legal effect of an instrument that he has signed.
Where maker of collateral note was in possession of copy, or where holder employed no fraud to prevent maker from inspecting original, and where no confidential relation existed between maker and holder, mere assertion by holder of note, which did not contain waiver of 30 days' legal notice to sell collateral, that he had right to immediately sell property pledged, held opinion or conclusion, and not to constitute legal fraud.
Where no fraud was practiced by holder of collateral note on maker in asserting that he had right to immediately sell cotton pledged, at which time collateral note was marked satisfied and surrendered, maker was not thereafter concerned as to when collateral was sold, and was not entitled to benefit of possible enhancement in value thereof.
Error from City Court of Reidsville; C. L. Cowart, Judge.
Action by the Claxton Bank against H. P. Smith. Judgment for defendant on counterclaim, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Statement of Facts by JENKINS, P.J.
The bank sued the maker of a promissory note for $850 and interest. The defendant, by pleas as amended set up that the bank, when the note was given, held, under two notes and written contracts for a total indebtedness of some $28,000 principal, and additional interest, 200 bales of Sea-Island cotton as collateral security; that on a stated day the bank demanded payment, insisting that it had the legal right to sell the cotton on that day, when the market price was 68 cents a pound, and that it would sell the cotton at that price on that day; that the statements as to the necessity and right of selling the cotton at that time, and that it would then be sold, were fraudulent, in that, under the law as to giving 30 days' notice of sale, the bank had no such right; that it in fact held the cotton several weeks, and then sold it for 75 cents a pound; that the $850 note sued on was given in settlement of the old collateral notes for the difference between the indebtedness and 68 cents a pound, the then market price; that the relationship of the parties was confidential; and that by reason of such fraudulent misrepresentations, and the failure of the plaintiff to sell the cotton at the agreed time and price, and its subsequent sale at 75 cents a pound, plaintiff is not liable on the $850 note, but is entitled to the difference in the market price when actually sold by the bank, after deducting the amount of the note sued on. The plaintiff demurred both generally and specially to these allegations as insufficient to show fraud or any legal defense, and preserved its exceptions pendente lite to the judgment overruling its demurrers. The jury found in favor of the defendant's counterclaim for $3,582.86 principal and $1,140.30 interest, and the plaintiff bank excepts to the overruling of its motion for new trial, based on the general grounds, alleged errors in the charge, and the alleged disqualifying relationship of certain jurors to the defendant and his counsel. The evidence of the bank's witnesses was to the effect that, on the date on which the $850 note was executed, it was understood and agreed that the cotton collateral was being turned over by the defendant to the bank as its absolute property, to sell and deal with as it chose, on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial