Case Name: MILLER v. BYRD
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1921-02-15
Citations: 26 Ga. App. 307
Docket Number: 11659
Parties: MILLER v. BYRD.
Judges: Stephens and Bill, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 307–309

Head Matter:
11659.
MILLER v. BYRD.
Decided February 15, 1921.
Rehearing denied March 3, 1921.
Complaint; from Coffee superior court — Judge Summerall. June 11, 1920.
(Statement- of facts by Jenkins, P. J.) This was a suit on a promissory note. The defendant admitted the execution of the note, and relied upon a plea of payment. The undisputed evi dence shows the followings facts: Miller executed and delivered to Evans the note sued on, which in due course was purchased by Byrd, the plaintiff. After its maturity Byrd left the note for collection with the Broxton Banking Company, which, as his agent, had authority, on its payment, to surrender it. While the bank thus held the note for collection the maker made arrangements with Milhollin to borrow the money necessary to take it up, and Milhollin, acting solely as his agent, went to the bank and got the note, with the understanding that it should either be returned or paid. After the bank had thus entrusted the note to Milhollin, acting as Miller’s agent, Milhollin made and delivered a check to Miller in a sum equal to the amount called for by the note; and Miller, after indorsing the check, returned it to Milhollin,. who thereupon delivered to him the note. After about two weeks, the check was carried by Milhollin’s bookkeeper to the bank, which credited Miller with it on. the books of the bank. It does not appear that the bank was given any direction as to how the check should be applied, but it is undisputed that when the check was thus sent to the bank, the bank “was not notified that the check was to be credited to Mr. Thomas Byrd, or that it was in payment of his note. ” It was not until after about a year that Byrd ascertained he had received no credit for the note, or that Miller became aware that the Milhollin check had been credited to his, and not Byrd’s account, at which time the proceeds of the check had been withdrawn from the bank by Miller. The court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, which the defendant assigned as error, on the theory that his defense of payment had been sustained.

Opinion:
Jenkins, P. J.
Under the undisputed evidence, as outlined in the statement of facts below, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.
Stephens and Bill, JJ., concur.
B. B. Qhasiain, L. B. Heath, for plaintiff in error.
J. W. Quincey, 'contra.