When endorsement is denied on oath, there must be proof of genuineness of endorsement.

- Existence of genuine endorsement is essential to plaintiff's case and burden will ordinarily be upon plaintiff as to this issue. Ruby v. Boyett, 19 Ga. App. 516, 91 S.E. 939 (1917).

When defendant denies genuineness of endorsement, burden on plaintiff to prove otherwise.

- When defendant has, in defendant's plea, denied genuineness of signature of payee transferring check to plaintiff, and alleged that this signature was a forgery, burden is placed on plaintiff to prove genuineness of signature. Buena Vista Loan & Sav. Bank v. Stockdale, 59 Ga. App. 798, 2 S.E.2d 158 (1939).

Section applicable although endorser's name signed by agent and action is against maker, not endorser.

- Rule applies though name of endorser purports to have been signed not by endorser but by endorser's agent or attorney in fact, and though action be not against endorser but against maker. Plea which seems to admit endorsement is not a denial of the endorsement. Habersham v. Lehman, 63 Ga. 380 (1879).

Refusal to admit or deny for lack of information not a plea of general issue.

- Where fact is peculiarly within knowledge of opposite party, pleader may refuse to admit or deny for lack of information and demand proof of such allegation. Such an answer is not subject to demurrer (now motion to dismiss), nor does it amount to a plea of general issue. Byrom v. Ringe, 83 Ga. App. 234, 63 S.E.2d 235 (1951).

Although not specifically alleged, plaintiff presumed holder in due course absent denial by defendant.

- Where no endorsement of note sued on by original payee appears in pleadings, nor is it alleged in petition that plaintiff acquired note in due course; but defendants do not question plaintiff's title to instrument and do not deny that plaintiff became holder thereof in due course, it will be presumed that plaintiff was holder in due course by endorsement of payee. Holland v. Citizens' & S. Nat'l Bank, 50 Ga. App. 471, 178 S.E. 413 (1935).

Denial that one is holder in due course not denial of endorsement's validity under section.

- Denial that plaintiff is holder in due course of note is not denial of validity of endorsement, nor does it deny authority of endorser to act in endorsing note as attorney in fact of payee or transferor. Griffin v. Blackshear Bank, 66 Ga. App. 821, 19 S.E.2d 325 (1942).

Though signature does not purport to be authorized, failure to deny authenticity is admission.

- Although signature, not purporting to be made by any particular agent authorized to act for corporation and not being accompanied by corporate seal, does not import its own authenticity, defendant, by not denying endorsement under oath, conclusively admits its genuineness. Sheffield v. Johnson County Sav. Bank, 2 Ga. App. 221, 58 S.E. 386 (1907).

Mere general statement is answer that defendant denies detailed allegation of assignment insufficient as denial of alleged execution or of authority of officer executing assignment, and does not put plaintiff on proof of such averments. Odell v. Wessinger, 54 Ga. App. 838, 189 S.E. 367 (1936).

General denial of general allegation suffices as to subsequent amendment of petition.

- Mere general denial, in a plea sworn to by a defendant, of paragraph in plaintiff's petition in which plaintiff alleges merely that plaintiff is owner of choses in action sued on, suffices as denial of subsequent amendment to petition which alleges assignment. Georgia Fertilizer Co. v. Foster, 40 Ga. App. 436, 149 S.E. 812 (1929).

Denial sufficient to put plaintiff on proof of endorsements.

- See Bruce v. Neal Bank, 134 Ga. 364, 67 S.E. 819 (1910); Federal Disct. Co. v. J.H. Carter & Co., 14 Ga. App. 645, 82 S.E. 51 (1914).

Cited in Tyson v. Bray, 117 Ga. 689, 45 S.E. 74 (1903); Harper v. Peeples, 11 Ga. App. 161, 74 S.E. 1008 (1912); Kirby v. Johnson County Sav. Bank, 12 Ga. App. 157, 76 S.E. 996 (1913); Citizens Bank v. Ware, 12 Ga. App. 512, 77 S.E. 589 (1913); Butler v. First Nat'l Bank, 13 Ga. App. 35, 78 S.E. 772 (1913); Lightfoot v. Head & Cain, 27 Ga. App. 148, 107 S.E. 609 (1921); Edwards v. Camp, 29 Ga. App. 556, 116 S.E. 210 (1923); Pape v. Woolford Realty Co., 35 Ga. App. 284, 134 S.E. 174 (1926); Massell v. Fourth Nat'l Bank, 38 Ga. App. 631, 144 S.E. 806 (1928); Lancaster v. Ralston, 58 Ga. App. 404, 198 S.E. 839 (1938); Austell Bank v. National Bondholders Corp., 188 Ga. 757, 4 S.E.2d 913 (1939); Home Fin. Co. v. United Motor Sales, 91 Ga. App. 679, 86 S.E.2d 659 (1955).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Assignments, § 9 et seq. 77 Am. Jur. 2d, Vendor and Purchaser, § 334.

C.J.S.

- 17 C.J.S., Contracts, §§ 81, 87.

ALR.

- Assignability of contract to furnish all of buyer's requirement or to take all of seller's output, 39 A.L.R. 1192.