Court Opinion

ID: 9566761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:42:50.031765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:23.637915
License: Public Domain

Deen, Judge,
dissenting. "De minimis non curat lex.” The fact of this case is that a two-year loan taken out on November 14,1969, is payable on November 15, 1971, whether it so recites or not, because it is commercial paper and comes under Code Ann. § 109A-3 — 503 (3): Where any presentment is due on a day which is not a full business day for either the person making presentment or the party to pay or accept, presentment is due on the next following day which is a full business day for both parties.” Sunday, November 14,1971, cannot be a full business day for an industrial loan company. Code Ann. § 26-9908. Therefore, November 15,1971, was the first date on which the commercial paper could be paid after it became due, and the fdct that the note so recited, instead of putting down a fictitious date on which everybody understood payment could reoí be made should not result in voiding the entire transaction. "Dies dominicus non est juridicus.” Brooks v. Hicks, *766230 Ga. 500, 502 (197 SE2d 711).