Burch v. Daniel

Burch v. Daniel, 28 S.E. 622 (Ga. 1897)

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided: May 20, 1897
Judges: Lumpkin
Citations: 28 S.E. 622101 Ga. 2281897 Ga. LEXIS 201

Cited by 9

Headnotes

1. A promissory note, as originally written and executed, was payable to a named person “or order.” This person endorsed it to another, and thereafter an action was brought upon it by a third person, to whom it had never been endorsed. At the time this action was begun, the note had been altered by erasing the word “order,” and inserting the word “bearer,” without the knowledge or consent of the makers; but when, or by whom, such alteration was made did not appear. Held, that the plaintiff could' not maintain an action upon this note in his own name ; and this is true, even if the alteration was made before he became possessed of the note, and though he took it without knowledge of the fact that there had been a change in its terms after its execution. 2. This case is controlled by the ruling above announced; and, under the facts therein recited, it was error to direct a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.

Summary

Complaint on notes. Before Judge Hart. Laurens superior court. July term,. 1896.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Lumpkin

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Lumpkin, P. J.

In order to authorize one to institute and maintain in his own name an action upon a promissory note, the legal title to the paper must be in the plaintiff.

*229 This was an action by Daniel upon promissory notes which were originally payable to John A. Fretwell, or order. Upon each of the notes was written the following transfer: “For value received, I hereby sell and transfer the within note to C. S. Pope, without recourse on me. J. A. Fretwell. ” Without the knowledge or consent of the makers of the notes, the word “order” had been in each of them erased, and the word “bearer” substituted in ' its stead, before the action was brought; though it does not appear when or by whom these alterations had been made, or that this had occurred before Daniel, the plaintiff, became possessed of the notes. Whatever may be the truth as to this matter, it is certain that the legal title to the notes was not in the plaintiff when he brought his action. Manifestly it was in Pope, as the notes had never been endorsed by him to any one. The unauthorized change in the phraseology of the notes, whether innocently or fraudulently made, did not render them negotiable by mere delivery. If Daniel was in fact the equitable owner of the notes, he might have instituted an action thereon, for his use, in the name of the person holding the legal title; but, under the facts as they appear in the record before us, his case falls squarely within the rule announced at the beginning of this opinion. In this connection, see Dalton City Co. v. Johnson, 57 Ga. 398 ; Benson v. Abbott, Parker & Co., 95 Ga. 69 .

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Allen v. Commercial Credit Co.117 S.E. 650 (Ga. 1923)
Stone v. COLONIAL CREDIT COMPANY91 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956)
Folsom v. Continental Adjustment Corp.172 S.E. 833 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
Bond v. Maxwell150 S.E. 860 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929)
Northeast Factor & Discount Co. v. Mortgage Investments, Inc.131 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
Sulunias v. Poolos96 S.E. 866 (Ga. 1918)

Most recent

Northeast Factor & Discount Co. v. Mortgage Investments, Inc.131 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
Stone v. COLONIAL CREDIT COMPANY91 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956)
Folsom v. Continental Adjustment Corp.172 S.E. 833 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
Bond v. Maxwell150 S.E. 860 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929)
Allen v. Commercial Credit Co.117 S.E. 650 (Ga. 1923)
Anderson Banking Co. v. Chandler107 S.E. 60 (Ga. 1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Benson v. Abbott, Parker & Co., 22 S.E. 127 (Ga. 1894)	21
	Dalton City Co. v. Johnson, 57 Ga. 398 (1876)	8

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list