O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-3-109 (2019)

Payable to bearer or to order

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A promise or order is payable to bearer if it:

(1) States that it is payable to bearer or to the order of bearer or otherwise indicates that the person in possession of the promise or order is entitled to payment;

(2) Does not state a payee; or

(3) States that it is payable to or to the order of cash or otherwise indicates that it is not payable to an identified person.

(b) A promise or order that is not payable to bearer is payable to order if it is payable to (i) the order of an identified person; or (ii) an identified person or order. A promise or order that is payable to order is payable to the identified person.

(c) An instrument payable to bearer may become payable to an identified person if it is specially indorsed pursuant to subsection (a) of Code Section 11-3-205. An instrument payable to an identified person may become payable to bearer if it is indorsed in blank pursuant to subsection (b) of Code Section 11-3-205.

History

Code 1981, § 11-3-109, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 1306, § 3.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1910, § 4273, former Civil Code 1910, § 4273, former Code 1933, § 14-208, and former

Code Section 11-3-110, are included in the annotations for this Code section. Payee must be indicated with reasonable certainty. - Where instrument or note is not payable to bearer but is

payable to order, there being no blank left for name of payee, payee must be named or indicated therein with reasonable certainty. Peretzman v. Borochoff, 58 Ga. App. 838, 200 S.E. 331, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 149 (1938) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-208). Authority to fill blank left for name of payee. - Where blank is left in bill or note for name of payee, there is an implied authority to holder to fill up instrument and make it in fact what it was designed to be. If made payable in blank, person to whom it is negotiated by maker may fill it up by inserting that person’s own name; if made payable to order of person who shall thereafter endorse it, it is negotiable without any alteration, and may be transferred by endorsement. Peretzman v. Borochoff, 58 Ga. App. 838, 200 S.E. 331, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 149 (1938) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-208). Absence of language making writing payable to order or bearer. - Absent language making writing payable

to order or bearer, writing is not negotiable instrument. Hall v. Westmoreland, Hall & Bryan, 123 Ga. App. 809, 182 S.E.2d 539, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1397 (1971) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-208). Terms “bearer” and “holder” are of same import, and where either is not employed in an instrument it may be negotiated by delivery. Pryor v. American Trust & Banking Co., 15 Ga. App. 822, 84 S.E. 312, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 69 (1915) (decided under former Civil Code 1910 § 4273). Absence of language making writing payable to order or bearer. - Absent language making writing payable to order or bearer, writing is not negotiable instrument. Hall v. Westmoreland, Hall & Bryan, 123 Ga. App. 809, 182 S.E.2d 539, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1397 (1971) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-208).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 11 Am. Jur. 2d, Bills and Notes, §§ 75 et seq., 122, 203, 212. C.J.S. 10 C.J.S., Bills and Notes, §§ 13, 128. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 3109. ALR. Necessity of express agreement between endorsers to be jointly and not successively liable, in order to give a right of contribution as between themselves, 11 A.L.R. 1332; 90 A.L.R. 305. Waiver of demand and notice as affecting endorsers other than the one above whose name it immediately appears, 21 A.L.R. 1396; 110 A.L.R. 1228. Presumption from possession of ownership of unendorsed note payable to order on issue between rival claimants, 30 A.L.R. 1492. Validity and effect of note payable to maker without words of negotiability, 42 A.L.R. 1067; 50 A.L.R. 426.

Instrument payable to “estate” as within rule that an instrument payable to order of fictitious or nonexistent person is payable to bearer, 60 A.L.R. 610. Payment to, or endorsement by, indicated beneficiary of check purporting to be payable or endorsed to one person “for another,” 61 A.L.R. 272. When negotiable instruments deemed payable to fictitious or nonexistent persons within statute or rule that makes such paper payable to bearer, 118 A.L.R. 15. Validity and effect of note payable by its terms to maker or order and not endorsed by maker, 126 A.L.R. 1309. Liability of bank for diversion to benefit of presenter or third party of proceeds of check drawn to bank’s order by drawer not indebted to bank, 69 A.L.R.4th 778. When is instrument “payable to bearer or to order” as required to constitute negotiable instrument under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code §§ 3-104(a)(1) and 3-109, 77 A.L.R.5th 523.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1991–1992 · leading case: Crolley v. Haygood Contracting, Inc., 411 S.E.2d 907 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
Crolley v. Haygood Contracting, Inc., 411 S.E.2d 907 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “at (c), but was “payable only upon an act or event uncertain as to time of occurrence,” OCGA § 11-3-109 (2) — i.e., when the work was performed.”
Feely v. First Am. Bank, 424 S.E.2d 345 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “(b) Appellant’s assertion that the note of December 28 was an interim note which remained in effect only until vacated, when appellant subsequently executed his $30,000 note of February 19, 1990, and cross-guaranty agreement, is not compatible with the clear intent of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.