Case ID: ga-app_35/html/0039-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Stephens, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

16584.
    Moore, executor, v. Moore, administratrix.
    Appeal and Error, 4 O. J. p'. 908, n. 65.
    Bills and Notes, 8 C. J. p. 241, n. 5; p. 799, n. 72; p. 1088, n. 77.
    Decided February 13, 1926.
    Complaint; from Greene superior court—J. S. Callaway, judge pro bae vice. May 13, 1925.
    Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
    Mrs. Margaret Moore, as administratrix of P. G. Moore, sued G. A. Moore, as executor of the will of Mrs. Eliza 0. Moore, on two promissory notes, payable to the order of P. G. Moore, signed by Mrs. J. M. Moore, who is admitted to be the same person as Mrs. Eliza C. Moore, one dated January 1, 1921, for $400, and the other dated June 23, 1921, for $50. There was no denial of liability on the $50 note. The defendant set up and introduced in evidence, as a defense to the suit on the $400 .note, a writing dated September 1, 1921, signed by the payee of the note, which purported to transfer to G. A. Moore, his brother, in consideration of love and affection, two notes, one of which was the $400 note sued on. This writing was separate and distinct from the note itself, and not attached to it. The jury found for the plaintiff the full amount of both notes. The defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted.
   Stephens, J.

1. Neither under the negotiable-instruments law adopted August 18, 1924 (Ga. L. 1924, p. 126), nor under the law as it previously existed, does the legal title to a negotiable promissory note, payable to order, pass to a transferee for a consideration of love and affection only and not for value, except by indorsement upon the instrument itself or upon a paper attached to it. Such a transferee, therefore, acquires no legal title to the note by a separate transfer to him in writing executed by the payee but unattached to the note. Ga. L. 1924, p. 126, §§ 31, 49; Citizens First National Bank of Albany v. Wilson, 155 Ga. 321 (116 S. E. 316), s. e. 28 Ga. App. 524 (111 S. E. 821) ; Haug v. Riley, 101 Ga. 372, 375 (29 S. E. 44, 40. L. R. A. 244) ; Daniel, Neg. Instr. (6th ed.), § 741.

2. The payee of such a note, in executing- such a transfer on September 1, ■ 1921 (prior to the adoption of the negotiable-instruments law), did not part with the legal title to the note. His administratrix, therefore, is entitled as a matter of law to recover on the title against the maker, who, having no other defense, can not, by setting up the transfer, dispute the plaintiff’s title. Civil Code (1910), § 4290; Ga. L. 1924, p. 126, § 59.

3. This being a suit upon the note referred to, and upon another note, which is admittedly due, brought by the administratrix of the payee against the executor of the maker, the verdict found for the plaintiff was as a matter of law demanded, and the other alleged errors were harmless to the defendant and immaterial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

J. G. Faust, Noel P. Park, for plaintiff in error.

F. H. George, contra.