terms rule in Georgia

1937Under proper instructions, the sufficiency of the search and inquiry is one for the jury, upon consideration of the evidence” (Modern Woodmen of America v. Michelin, 101 Okla. 217 , 225 Pac. 163 , 36 A. L.

1937Under proper instructions, the sufficiency of the search and inquiry is one for the jury, upon consideration of the evidence” (Modern Woodmen of America v. Michelin, 101 Okla. 217 , 225 Pac. 163 , 36 A. L.

1932Under the terms of such a rule, where a pass-book is presented by a person other than the depositor to whom it belongs, together with a forged check bearing a signature similar to that of the depositor, and there is nothing to arouse the suspicion of the teller or put him on inquiry, as a reasonably prudent man, as to the genuineness of the check, and the bank in good faith pays the check, believing the person presenting it to be the depositor, it is not liable in a suit by the depositor to recover the money so paid.” Langdale v. Citizens Bank, 121 Ga. 105 ( 48 S. E. 708 , 69 L.

1932Under the terms of such a rule, where a pass-book is presented by a person other than the depositor to whom it belongs, together with a forged check bearing a signature similar to that of the depositor, and there is nothing to arouse the suspicion of the teller or put him on inquiry, as a reasonably prudent man, as to the genuineness of the check, and the bank in good faith pays the check, believing the person presenting it to be the depositor, it is not liable in a suit by the depositor to recover the money so paid.” Langdale v. Citizens Bank, 121 Ga. 105 ( 48 S. E. 708 , 69 L.

1929Where property was levied upon by virtue of a distress warrant, and was claimed by a third person from whom the sheriff accepted the usual damage and claim bonds, and to whom he delivered the property, the sheriff could not afterwards discharge or waive any of the terms of the claim bond “so as to affect the interest therein of the plaintiff in fi. fa., without his consent.” Boyd v. Crews, 32 Ga. App. 138 (5) ( 122 S. E. 802 ), Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Cochran, 37 Ga. App. 794 (1) ( 141 S. E. 919 ).

1929Where property was levied upon by virtue of a distress warrant, and was claimed by a third person from whom the sheriff accepted the usual damage and claim bonds, and to whom he delivered the property, the sheriff could not afterwards discharge or waive any of the terms of the claim bond “so as to affect the interest therein of the plaintiff in fi. fa., without his consent.” Boyd v. Crews, 32 Ga. App. 138 (5) ( 122 S. E. 802 ), Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Cochran, 37 Ga. App. 794 (1) ( 141 S. E. 919 ).

1929Where property was levied upon by virtue of a distress warrant, and was claimed by a third person from whom the sheriff accepted the usual damage and claim bonds, and to whom he delivered the property, the sheriff could not afterwards discharge or waive any of the terms of the claim bond “so as to affect the interest therein of the plaintiff in fi. fa., without his consent.” Boyd v. Crews, 32 Ga. App. 138 (5) ( 122 S. E. 802 ), Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Cochran, 37 Ga. App. 794 (1) ( 141 S. E. 919 ).

1929Where property was levied upon by virtue of a distress warrant, and was claimed by a third person from whom the sheriff accepted the usual damage and claim bonds, and to whom he delivered the property, the sheriff could not afterwards discharge or waive any of the terms of the claim bond “so as to affect the interest therein of the plaintiff in fi. fa., without his consent.” Boyd v. Crews, 32 Ga. App. 138 (5) ( 122 S. E. 802 ), Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Cochran, 37 Ga. App. 794 (1) ( 141 S. E. 919 ).

1927“The terms exception and reserva tion are often used in deeds indiscriminately, and sometimes- what purports to be a reservation has the force of an exception.” McAfee v. Arline, 83 Ga. 645 ( 10 S. E. 441 ).

1927“The terms exception and reserva tion are often used in deeds indiscriminately, and sometimes- what purports to be a reservation has the force of an exception.” McAfee v. Arline, 83 Ga. 645 ( 10 S. E. 441 ).

1909From the terms of this rule, I say, then, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to come to any other conclusion than that it is a remedial provision, designed to protect any creditor against loss by reason of an excess of debts.” In Banks v. Darden, 18 Ga. 318 , 341 where the liability of the directors and stockholders of a bank with a charter similar to that involved in 12 Ga. 104 , was up for adjudication, Judge Lumpkin delivering the opinion said: “that the individual liability of the directors and of the stockholders, under the charter, is *not strictly a contract, although, from conven

1909From the terms of this rule, I say, then, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to come to any other conclusion than that it is a remedial provision, designed to protect any creditor against loss by reason of an excess of debts.” In Banks v. Darden, 18 Ga. 318 , 341 where the liability of the directors and stockholders of a bank with a charter similar to that involved in 12 Ga. 104 , was up for adjudication, Judge Lumpkin delivering the opinion said: “that the individual liability of the directors and of the stockholders, under the charter, is *not strictly a contract, although, from conven

1907New v. LeHardy, 46 Ga. 616 ; Scott v. Patrick, 44 Ga. 188 ; Asher v. Cape, 95 Ga. 31 .

1907New v. LeHardy, 46 Ga. 616 ; Scott v. Patrick, 44 Ga. 188 ; Asher v. Cape, 95 Ga. 31 .

1907New v. LeHardy, 46 Ga. 616 ; Scott v. Patrick, 44 Ga. 188 ; Asher v. Cape, 95 Ga. 31 .