Smith v. Maddox-rucker Banking Co

• Decision Date: 28 September 1910
• Docket Number: (Nos. 2,203, 2,294.)
• Parties: SMITH v. MADDOX-RUCKER BANKING CO. MADDOX-RUCKER BANKING CO. v. SMITH.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

68 S.E. 1092

8 Ga.App. 288

SMITH

v.MADDOX-RUCKER BANKING CO.

MADDOX-RUCKER BANKING CO.

v.SMITH.

(Nos. 2, 203, 2, 294.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Sept. 28, 1910.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. New Trial (§ 76^*)—Excessiveness or Verdict—Discretion of Court.

The trial judge has the discretion of granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is excessive, when his mind and conscience disapprove the verdict as rendered, though the verdict is not so large in amount as to carry conviction of bias and prejudice on the part of the jury, and though the case is one in which the only measure of damage is the enlightened conscience of the jury.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see New Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 153-156; Dec. Dig. § 76.*]

2. Appeal and Ebror (§ 1145*)—Disposition of Cause—Effect of Affirmance of Main Bill of Exceptions.

Ordinarily, when the judgment on the main bill of exceptions is affirmed, the cross-bill is dismissed; but this result does not follow when the effect of the affirmance on the main bill is to require a new trial, and the cross-bill presents matters likely to be up for ruling on that trial.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 1145.*]

3. Banks and Banking (§ 140*)—Postdated Check—Nature.

A postdated check (i. e., a check dated at a time in future) is not subject to payment or acceptance until the time of its. date arrives. If it be presented at a time in advance of its date, the drawee, even if he has funds on hand sufficient to pay it, cannot pay it, or retain the fund to pay, as against other checks or drafts presented and payable prior to the time the check bears date. The drawer of a postdated check does not undertake to have the funds in the drawee's hands to meet it before the time at which the check bears date arrives.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 395, 404; Dec. Dig. § '.40. *]

Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by M. K. Smith against the Maddox-Rucker Banking Company. A verdict for plaintiff was set aside, and a new trial granted, and plaintiff brought error to the Court of Appeals; defendant filing cross-exceptions. Questions were certified to the Supreme Court. On remand after answers to questions (68 S. E. 1031). Judgment affirmed on both main and cross bills of exceptions.

R. B. Blackburn, for plaintiff in error.

Smith, Hammond & Smith, for defendant in error.

POWELL, J. Smith sued the bank for general damages resulting to him from the wrongful protest of two checks drawn by him on his bank account. Smith had a deposit account with the defendant bank, and on April 7, 1905, he had a sum to his credit On that day he drew a check for $140, payable to an insurance company, but dated it 30 days ahead. This check came into the bank on April 17th, and was charged to his account In the meantime he drew other checks, not sufficient, however, to have overdrawn his account if the postdated check for $140 had not been charged in; but his account did become apparently overdrawn by the charging in of this check, and when the two checks in question came in they were protested for lack of funds. The point is that the check of $140, being dated May 15, 1905, should not have been charged to his account prior to that date and the two checks that were protested should have been paid.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff a verdict for $400. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, containing several grounds. The judge granted a new trial, stating in his order that he granted it on two of the grounds only, the first and third. The first ground is that the verdict is excessive. We need not set out the third ground. It related to a request to charge. We may say, in passing, that we see no reason for granting a new trial on that ground. The plaintiff sued out a bill of exceptions, complaining of the grant of a new trial. The defendant filed a cross-bill, complaining that the court should have granted it on all the grounds, and not merely on the first and third.

In this court the plaintiff in error contended that as...