Tallahassee Bank & Trust Co. v. Raines, 46614
| Decision Date | 06 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46614,No. 3,46614,3 |
| Citation | 187 S.E.2d 320,125 Ga.App. 263 |
| Parties | , 10 UCC Rep.Serv. 665 TALLAHASSEE BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. Doc M. RAINES et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Reinhardt, Whitley & Sims, Ernest J. Yates, Tifton, for appellant.
Wright, Reddick & Faircloth, G. Mallon Faircloth, Cordele, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
In a suit on a series of notes, plaintiff bank appeals from the grant of summary judgment for the defendant makers and from the denial of its own motion for summary judgment.
Defendants executed a five year lease on a farm belonging to one C. Scott Vinson in late October of 1968. It provided for a yearly rental of $8,000. Vinson had a large personal debt with the appellant bank. In November of 1968, he assigned the rentals due under the lease to the bank. In February of 1969, in response to a call from the bank for more security, Vinson procured from defendants a series of five notes for $8,000, each one payable on successive yearly dates. We presume the defendants executed these notes as an accommodation to Vinson since they were already bound to pay these amounts under the lease. Vinson promptly assigned the notes to the bank by way of a separate document entitled 'Assignment.' Defendants paid the first note which matured in October of 1969. In January of 1970, upon Vinson's default, his mortgage was foreclosed and the farm was sold at public auction. Defendants were called upon to pay rent to the new owner and subsequently defaulted on the note which matured in October of 1970.
The bank brought this action not only on the note in default, but on the last three in the series, alleging anticipatory repudiation. The bank contends it is entitled to payment as a holder in due course.
Two issues are presented by this appeal: Whether the bank is a holder in due course; or if not, whether the undisputed facts raised a sufficient defense to demand the summary judgment for the defendants.
1. Code Ann. § 109A-3-202. This means that a separate paper pinned or clipped to an instrument is an insufficient indorsement. The paper must be Comment 3 to § 3-202 of the 1962 Official Text of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Madison Realty & Development, Inc.
...space for signatures remains on the negotiable instrument. See, e.g., Pribus, 173 Cal.Rptr. at 751; Tallahassee Bank & Trust Co. v. Raines, 125 Ga.App. 263, 187 S.E.2d 320, 321 (1972). But see Crosby v. Roub, 16 Wis. 616, 626-27 (1863) (allonge permitted even where space remains on When the......
-
Ware v. Multibank 2009-1 Res-Adc Venture, LLC.
...to prove a valid assignment.15 In support of his argument,Ware provides a citation to one Georgia case, Tallahassee Bank & Trust Co. v. Raines, 125 Ga.App. 263, 187 S.E.2d 320 (1972). However, although Raines stands for the proposition that an allonge must be ‘so firmly affixed to the instr......
-
Estrada v. River Oaks Bank & Trust Co.
...indorsements that convenience or necessity requires additional space for further indorsements. Tallahassee Bank & Trust Co. v. Raines, 125 Ga.App. 263, 187 S.E.2d 320, 321 (1972); 2 R. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code § 3-202:24 at 767 (2d ed. We will not pass on that question for two reas......
-
Pribus v. Bush
...cases state the majority position. (Shepherd Mall St. Bank v. Johnson (Okl.1979) 603 P.2d 1115, 1118; Tallahassee Bank & Trust Company v. Raines (1972) 125 Ga.App. 263, 187 S.E.2d 320, 321; James Talcott, Inc. v. Fred Ratowsky Associates, Inc., supra, 2 U.C.C.Rep. at p. 1137.) The fourth ca......