O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-3-204 (2019)

Indorsement

✓ 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) “Indorsement” means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for the purpose of (i) negotiating the instrument; (ii) restricting payment of the instrument; or (iii) incurring indorser’s liability on the instrument; but regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an indorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement. For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument.

(b) “Indorser” means a person who makes an indorsement.

(c) For the purpose of determining whether the transferee of an instrument is a holder, an indorsement that transfers a security interest in the instrument is effective as an unqualified indorsement of the instrument.

(d) If an instrument is payable to a holder under a name that is not the name of the holder, indorsement may be made by the holder in the name stated in the instrument or in the holder’s name or both, but signature in both names may be required by a person paying or taking the instrument for value or collection.

History

Code 1981, § 11-3-204, 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 Code Section 11-3-203 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Preferred endorsement. - Though this section permits endorsement in the true name alone, endorsement showing both names is preferred. Perini Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank, 553 F.2d 398, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13115 (5th Cir. 1977) (decided under former Code 1933, §§ 3-405 and

4-205). Person operating business under trade name. - Under Georgia law, a person operating a business under trade name may endorse personally checks drawn to the operator under the operator’s trade name. Perini Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank, 553 F.2d 398, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13115 (5th Cir. 1977) (decided under former Code 1933, §§ 3-405 and 4-205).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 11 Am. Jur. 2d, Bills and Notes, § 221. C.J.S. 10 C.J.S., Bills and Notes, §§ 147, 149. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 3204.

ALR. Construction and application of provision of Negotiable Instruments Law regarding endorsement of instrument by payee or endorsee whose name is wrongly designated or misspelled, 153 A.L.R. 598.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Bank South, N.A. v. Midstates Grp., Inc., 364 S.E.2d 58 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
Bank South, N.A. v. Midstates Grp., Inc., 364 S.E.2d 58 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 11-3-202 (1, 2). On its back, the certificate of deposit contains the purported special indorsement of Midstates to pay the instrument to the order of the Bank (see OCGA § 11-3-204 (1)), which indorsement reflects that it was made by Williams acting in his capacity as a…”
LaBanz v. Bank South, 400 S.E.2d 357 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “The court, in denying that motion for directed verdict, evidently rejected Joseph’s contention that the endorsement was restrictive as defined in OCGA §§ 11-3-205 and 11-3-206, concluding instead that the endorsements were in blank, as covered by OCGA § 11-3-204 (2).”
Nganga v. Robins Fed. Credit Union (M.D. Ga. 2024). · cites it 2× “And Georgia’s codification of the UCC provisions cited by Nganga do not require RFCU to accept misspelled checks—O.C.G.A. § 11-3-204 is about indorsements and § 11-3-413 does not concern misspelled checks.”
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.