Vason v. Seymour
| Decision Date | 31 July 1871 |
| Citation | 44 Ga. 63 |
| Parties | GILBERT & VASON, plaintiffs in error. v. SEYMOUR, JOHNSON &COMPANY, defendants in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.] Drafts. Notice of non-payment. Before H. Morgan, by consent, Judge pro hac vice. Dougherty Superior Court. February, 1871.
Seymour, Johnson & Company brought "complaint" against Gilbert & Vason, on a draft in these words:
*The defendants pleaded payment. Plaintiffs read in evidence the draft, and closed. Defendants moved for a non-suit, because there was no proof of demand on Moughon, nor of notice to defendants of such demand, and Moughon's refusal to pay the draft. The motion for non-suit was overruled. Vason testified that Vason & Davis owed plaintiffs $450 00, and in March, 1867, Johnson called for payment; they offered him the whole of the money, but he preferred said draft and the balance in cash, and they settled with him in that way, and gave Moughon credit by the amount of the draft; Moughon there owed defendants say, $500 00, was in possession of land worth $50,000 00, and considered solvent. He had promptly paid his bills, and defendants had no notice that he had not paid this draft till the fall of 1867, or the winter of 1867-8. Then Moughon was insolvent. The jury found for the plaintiffs for the amount of the draft and costs. The defendants moved for a new trial, upon the grounds that the Court erred in not non-suiting plaintiffs, and because the verdict was contrary to law, etc., and because plaintiffs' laches discharged defendants. The new trial was refused, and that is assigned as error.
Vason & Davis, for plaintiffs in error.
William E. Smith, for defendant.
The controlling question in this case, presented by the record, is, whether, under the facts, plaintiffs in error were entitled to notice of the non-payment of the draft made and indorsed by them on Moughon. We have held that the Code, section 2739, applied to indorsers, and to papers intended for negotiation at a chartered bank, and that parties to notes or drafts other than indorsers, and not included in the terms of the Code, were still entitled to the notice under the rules of law, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank Of Richland v. Nicholson
...conflict with the ruling in Holmes v. Pratt, and, if the two decisions are irreconcilable, the earlier decision would control. In Gilbert v. Seymour, 44 Ga. 63, the defendants were both drawers and indorsers of a domestic bill of exchange, not a bank paper, and it was held that under the Co......
-
Bank of Richland v. Nicholson
...conflict with the ruling in Holmes v. Pratt, and, if the two decisions are irreconcilable, the earlier decision would control. In Gilbert v. Seymour, 44 Ga. 63, the defendants were both drawers and indorsers of a domestic bill of exchange, not a bank paper, and it was held that under the Co......
- Kilgo v. Vandyke