TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Allen v. National Bank

Allen v. National Bank of Tifton

Allen v. Nat'l Bank, 80 S.E. 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 27, 1914
Docket
No. 5217
Judges
Roan
Citations
80 S.E. 69714 Ga. App. 2991914 Ga. App. LEXIS 225
Summary
Trover; from city court of Tiftou — Judge B. Eve. September 3, 1913.

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

Opinion of the Court — Roan

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

Roan, J.

1. A married woman may lawfully borrow money and give it to her husband to apply in satisfaction of his debts, provided the lender receives no part of the money as a creditor of the husband.

2. This being an action of trover to recover possession of certain personal property which the defendants contended had been deposited with them as collateral security for a debt due by the plaintiff, the material questions to be decided are, whether the plaintiff was indebted to the defendants, and whether she pledged or authorized to be pledged as security the property sued for. The question of the validity of the note *300 evidencing the indebtedness and purporting to have been executed by one as agent of the plaintiff was not involved; because if the note was invalid and the plaintiff was indebted on open account, the defendants had the right to retain the property sued for, until the debt was paid.

Decided January 27, 1914. Trover; from city court of Tiftou — Judge B. Eve. September 3, 1913. R. D. Smith, Stewart Griggs, for plaintiff in'error. Fulwood & Sheen, contra.

3. The evidence as to whether the loan was made to the plaintiff and at her instance was directly conflicting, but authorized the finding in favor of the defendants on this issue.

4. Even if the court committed error in admitting testimony that a note was executed by one claiming to be the agent for the plaintiff in the absence of proof of written authority to execute the note, such an error was harmless, as the suit was in trover and the question of the validity of the note was immaterial. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1921: 11941: 11942: 11954: 11966: 119212026peak 1921 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Parker & Co., Inc. v. Glenn83 S.E.2d 263 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)
  2. Planters Bank v. Ware109 S.E. 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921)
  3. Phelps v. House21 S.E.2d 522 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942)
  4. Domestic Loans of Washington, Inc. v. Wilder149 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
  5. George v. Seaboard Loan & Savings Ass'n16 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Domestic Loans of Washington, Inc. v. Wilder149 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
  2. Parker & Co., Inc. v. Glenn83 S.E.2d 263 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)
  3. Phelps v. House21 S.E.2d 522 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942)
  4. George v. Seaboard Loan & Savings Ass'n16 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)
  5. Planters Bank v. Ware109 S.E. 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list