Leiter v. Arnold, s. 42085
| Decision Date | 22 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Nos. 42085,42086,s. 42085,3 |
| Parties | Beulah G. LEITER v. Ross ARNOLD. R. P. LEITER v. Ross ARNOLD |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Marvin O'Neal, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.
Arnold & Harris, Atlanta, Ross Arnold, Atlanta, pro se, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. The contract here was entered into prior to the effective date of the Uniform Commercial Code, and the then existing law governs it. The checks sued on are negotiable instruments and their negotiability is not affected by the fact that many of them were postdated. Code § 14-212; cf. Code Ann. § 109A-3-114. A negotiable instrument is presumed to be based on a valid and sufficient consideration. Code § 14-301; cf. Code Ann. § 109A-3-408. In a suit on a check it is not necessary that consideration be alleged. Gainesville News v. Harrison, 58 Ga.App. 744(1), 199 S.E. 559.
Furthermore, the petition alleged that plaintiff had 'sold' certain stock to the defendants in exchange for the checks sued on. As used in this petition, the word 'sold' must be considered in the light of the definitions accepted by this court in Neuhoff v. Swift & Co., 54 Ga.App. 651, 188 S.E. 831, and Friedsam v. Sawan, Inc., 103 Ga.App. 500, 504(2), 119 S.E.2d 707, together with those approved by the Supreme Court in Howell v. State, 124 Ga. 698, 52 S.E. 649.
While it may be a matter of defense on the trial whether the stock was in fact delivered or tendered to the defendants, nevertheless when considered on general demurrer the petition is not defective by reason of a failure to allege delivery or tender of the stock as contended by defendants.
2. There is no merit in defendants' contention that the petition is fatally defective because it does not allege that the purchase of the stock was within the scope of the partnership business. This contention is not such a matter of defense as can be raised by a general demurrer. This contention raises only a question of fact, which according to the Code must be raised by plea or answer. Demurrers raise only questions of law. Code § 81-303.
3. Each of the checks in this case constituted a separate and distinct cause of action. Although the plaintiff may exercise the privilege of joinder accorded by Code § 3-113 and sue upon the checks in one action (Mangham v. Hotel & Restaurant Supply Co., 107 Ga.App. 882, 131 S.E.2d 853), it is necessary that each of the causes of action be embraced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phx. Corp. Recovery Servs. v. Astrachan (In re Beaulieu Grp.)
... ... sufficient consideration ." 298 Ga.App. at 573, 680 ... S.E.2d at 605 (citing Leiter v. Arnold , 114 Ga.App ... 323, 151 S.E.2d 175 (1966)) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has ... ...
-
Empire Life Insurance Co. of America v. Valdak Corp.
...and Printing Corp., D.Ind.1968, 301 F.Supp. 529; Phoenix v. Kovacevich, 246 Cal.App.2d 774, 55 Cal.Rptr. 135 (1966); Leiter v. Arnold, 114 Ga.App. 323, 151 S.E.2d 175 (1966); Wellbro Building Co. v. McConnico, 421 P.2d 837 (Okl.1966); McCormack v. E. E. McCormack Co., 239 Or. 264, 397 P.2d ......
-
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
...and Printing Corp., D.Ind.1968, 301 F.Supp. 529; Phoenix v. Kovacevich, 246 Cal.App.2d 774, 55 Cal.Rptr. 135 (1966); Leiter v. Arnold, 114 Ga.App. 323, 151 S.E.2d 175 (1966); Wellbro Building Co. v. McConnico, 421 P.2d 837 (Okl.1966); McCormack v. E. E. McCormack Co., 239 Or. 264, 397 P.2d ......
-
Riddick v. Evans
...of consideration is a (matter of) defense ..." See Wenke v. Norton, 120 Ga.App. 70, 71-72, 169 S.E.2d 663 (1969); Leiter v. Arnold, 114 Ga.App. 323, 151 S.E.2d 175 (1966). We conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the promissory note fails to reci......