Court Opinion

ID: 9625288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:34:58.303159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:05.217224
License: Public Domain

Quillian, Judge,
dissenting.
The trial court and the majority opinion have ruled that the transmittal of a note with a letter from the LaGrange Bank to the North Carolina Bank was the sale of the note. There is evidence to sustain this proposition. However, we are considering this matter on motion for summary judgment.
*415The note is made out to the North Carolina Bank and signed by L. C. Robinson and Sons, Inc., by G. E. Robinson, President. The note shows on its face that it is a loan made by the North Carolina Bank to L. C. Robinson and Sons. Hie majority opinion construes the evidence to show that it is a note made to the LaGrange Bank and then sold to the North Carolina Bank. I cannot agree with this reasoning. The letter addressed to the North Carolina Bank bears out the fact the parties contemplated that the North Carolina Bank would loan the money, not purchase the note from LaGrange Bank. It states: "This customer [has borrowed] our limit from us. I wish you would handle” it for "we have to try to secure additional funds for him...” "We... recommend this loan to you... if you can handle it...” Both the note and letter show an intent of the LaGrange Bank to secure a loan from the North Carolina Bank to Robinson, not a sale of a note from Robinson to the LaGrange Bank, discounted to the North Carolina Bank.
Further, it should be observed that the North Carolina Bank wrote to the LaGrange Bank as follows: "We are also pleased to handle a loan to L. C. Robinson and Sons, Inc., endorsed by Mr. Robinson for thirty days with the understanding that we will handle another thirty day renewal if necessary as an overline for your bank.” The most reasonable construction of this correspondence is that the North Carolina Bank was making a loan to the LaGrange Bank’s customer. The note itself contains no indorsement, assignment or transfer from the LaGrange Bank. If we follow the majority reasoning, the sale was accomplished by changing the name of the payee, most certainly not an acceptable business practice. See UCC §§ 8-307 and 8-308 (Ga.L. 1962, pp. 156,367) for the indorsement and transfer of investment securities. See and compare UCC §§ 3-201, 3-202 (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 248) setting out the transfer and negotiation of negotiable instruments.
Construing the proof offered against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment, I find that an issue of fact remains as to whether or not a sale took place. For that reason I respectfully dissent.