Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-10-13
COURT DECISIONS.
9leEsTED BY W. 8. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRClNiAN-PlLoT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are of Interest to
Our People.
poMAR V. EQUITABLE NJ. CO.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
July 9th, 1900.

supreme Court of Georgia.
July 9th, 1900.
THE PAYEE OF A NOTE IN pos
SESSION OF IT IS. PRESUMED TO
OWN IT. ALTHoGGH THE EN-
DoRsEAENT ON IT IS UNCAN-
C1LLED.
This was an action upon two promis-
sary notes.
The court says.
The defendant objected to the notes
going in evidence because 1T appeared
from the Endorsement upon the prin-
cipal note that the plaintiff had parted
with its title to said notes before the
filing of said suit, and that the right of
action was in the American Loan and
Trust Company, trustee, and not in
said plaintiff The objection was over
ruled and the notes admitted in evil
dence. Defendant excepted and as
signed error upon this ruling of the
court We are OF opinion that there is
no merit in the exception. The note
was in possession of the payee, and the
presumption was that 1t was the
owner. Notwithstanding it's indorse-
ment upon the note stood uncancelled,
and ii had right to sue thereon in it's
OWL name.
In Daniel Neg. Inst section 119S. the
rule is stated to be that, where there
appears on the paper the plaintiffs
own Endorsement, it will be presumed
either that he had not perfected his
Endorsement by delivery. or that the
paper has been returned to him as his
own property, and in either case he
has the right to sue upon it," In :
Rand. Com. Paper, section 7f7, the
author says:
The payee's possession of bill or
note is prima facie evidence of title in
him. Notwithstanding his own indorse-
nent is erased, and even, it has been
held. notwithstanding his own special
Endorsement. or Endorsement in blank
uncanrelled."
There are numerous adjudicated
cases to this effect cited by the au-
thorities above referred 10, and there
can he no question but that the great
weight of judicial opinion sustains the
doctrine. Ii is true that this court
held in Southern Bank of Georgia V
Mechanics saw. Bank that, where n
bill OF exchange or draft is Endorsed in
full by the payce, suit cannot be main
tanned in the name of the payee while
the Endorsement stands" The deci-
sion. however. was rendered by only
two judges and we are. therefore. not
compelled to follow it.
In Leitner V. Miller ii appeared that
Miller sued {. H. l.eitner. as principal
md S. ~ Lcitner. as indorser. on Il
note made by c. II. Leitner. payable to
=. -. iStiilltl anu lllQDISeu
as follows: IS. a. Leitncr. ]. V. II.
Allen. Treasurer. L. II. Miller. Pay l..
I. Plant or order, for collection" The
plaintiff introduced the note and closed.
Nhen the defendant moved for non
suit on the ground that plalntim had
shown title out OF himself by his in
lorsement on the note sued on. The
notion was ovcrruled. and the dcfen-
liant excepted.
This court held that although
plaintiffs name may be on the back of
The note sued on, he may recover
igainst the maker, as the law will pre-
sumo. in the absence of proof to the
contrary, that an Endorsement by him
Mas never completed by delivery, or, If
ne had delivered 1t so indorsed that he
mad taken it up. and was again the
egal holder or indorsec." Affirmed