Court Opinion

ID: 9853424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:48:32.378805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:47.403427
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Movant contends the proposition that the defendants were accommodation indorsers was not part of the original case since such theory was not raised as an affirmative defense. However, the Court of Appeals considered and passed upon the parties’ status in the previous appearance of this case. Moreover, the court pointed out: “It is no defense to the note sued upon that the defendant endorsers received no personal consideration from it. One signing for the accommodation of a party to the instrument as endorser is liable on it to a holder for value even though the holder knew at the time of taking that the endorsement was for accommodation purposes only. Code § 14-306.” Franklin *659v. Sea Island Bank, 111 Ga. App. 182, 184 (141 SE2d 121). The court then found the bank, as plaintiff, to be a holder in due course. So, the fact that the defendants were accommodation indorsers afforded them no defense to the plaintiff’s claim.
Movant further contends: “Movant is assignee of all rights, title and interest in said judgment; and movant will be adversely affected by any modification of the original judgment and execution based thereon, she not having been a party at trial and being, without question, a bona fide purchaser for value.”
With regard to Mrs. Joseph Franklin, individually, she stands in the shoes of the bank. A bona fide transferee of a judgment or execution shall have the same rights and be subject to the same equities and defenses as the original plaintiff. Code §§ 110-901 and 39-401. See H-J Enterprises v. Bennett, 118 Ga. App. 179 (2) (162 SE2d 838); Echols v. Tower Credit Corp., 223 Ga. 307 (2) (154 SE2d 617). As we have pointed out, this court on the prior appearance held that the bank could recover against the defendants even though they were accommodation indorsers. Assuming that Mrs. Franklin was a bona fide purchaser she would be entitled to all the bank’s rights in enforcing the judgment and execution. Thus, the addition of the parties’ status, and the consequent amendment of the judgment in the case sub judice would not affect or prejudice the rights of Mrs. Franklin as a transferee of the judgment.
Insofar as Mrs. Franklin, as executrix of Joseph Franklin’s estate, is concerned her rights are derivative of one of the original parties defendant. In that capacity the judgment was subject to amendment as between the parties.
It is therefore apparent that individually the movant would not be harmed by the amendment of the judgment and in her representative capacity the correction was proper.

Judgment adhered to.

Pannell and Evans, JJ., concur.