O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-3-207 (2019)

Reacquisition

✓ 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

Reacquisition of an instrument occurs if it is transferred to a former holder, by negotiation or otherwise. A former holder who reacquires the instrument may cancel indorsements made after the reacquirer first became a holder of the instrument. If the cancellation causes the instrument to be payable to the reacquirer or to bearer, the reacquirer may negotiate the instrument. An indorser whose indorsement is canceled is discharged, and the discharge is effective against any subsequent holder.

History

Code 1981, § 11-3-207, 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 1933, §§ 109A-3208 and 109A-3-601(3) are included in the annotations for this Code section. Intent of section. - Former Code 1933, §§ 109A-3-208 and 109A-3-601(3) were intended to eliminate circuity in or-

der of responsibility of endorsers. Columbian Peanut Co. v. Frosteg, 472 F.2d 476, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11994 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 824, 94 S. Ct. 126, 38 L. Ed. 2d 57 (1973) (decided under former Code 1933, §§ 109A-3-208 and 109A-3-601(3)).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 8C Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Duress and Undue Influence, § 1. C.J.S. 10 C.J.S., Bills and Notes, §§ 158, 244, 248.

U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 3207.

PART 3 ENFORCEMENT OF INSTRUMENTS JUDICIAL DECISIONS Security agreements not within article’s ambit. - Under Georgia law, security agreements are not negotiable instruments. Thus, security agreements do not fall within the ambit of this article,

including the holder in due course provisions. Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp. v. Wiley, 655 F. Supp. 655, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2149 (M.D. Ga. 1987).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1996–1996 · leading case: Thogerson v. State, 479 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
Thogerson v. State, 479 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “” 1 Thogerson asserts that the voucher must be treated as a negotiable instrument under former OCGA § 11-3-104 (1), and that former OCGA § 11-3-207 (1) (b) 2 provides that negotiation is effective even if obtained by fraud.”
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.