Estate of Bass v

Regions Bank, Inc., 947 F.3d 1352, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1731 (11th Cir. 2020). Assignment for collection as defense. — Contention that note has been assigned to collection agencies presents no defense where plaintiff is holder of the note and none of the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 113-603 (concerning discharge of liability to the extent of payment or satisfaction) prevent recovery. Wall v. Citizens & S. Bank, 153 Ga. App. 29, 264 S.E.2d 523, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1657 (1980), aff’d, 247 Ga. 216, 274 S.E.2d 486, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 645 11-3-301 (1981), overruled in part, Southall v. State, 300 Ga. 462, 796 S.E.2d 261, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 33 (2017) (decided under former Code Section 11-3-301). Nongenuine transfer as defense. — Payment of promissory note to supposed transferee, holding it by virtue of forged endorsement, will not protect maker or one who has assumed the debt against payment to true owner; and consequently, in suit by such an alleged transferee to enforce liability against such parties, the assumer may avail self of defense that alleged transfer by payee was not genuine. Austell Bank v. National Bondholders Corp., 188 Ga. 757, 4 S.E.2d 913, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 628 (1939) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-223). Inquiry into holder’s title in suit by holder against maker. — In suit instituted by person claiming to be owner and holder of promissory note, for the purpose of recovering thereon against maker and another person alleged to have assumed the debt, it is permissible for the latter to inquire into plaintiff’s title to note, if necessary either for plaintiff’s protection or to let in any valid defense which plaintiff seeks to make. Austell Bank v. National Bondholders Corp., 188 Ga. 757, 4 S.E.2d 913, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 628 (1939) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-505). “Claim.” — Word “claim” descends from the law merchant and indicates certain rights in instrument on which suit is based rather than mere reasons why alleged debtor is not liable for the fund. It is, however, to some extent broader than concept of legal title to instrument. Fulton Nat’l Bank v. Delco Corp., 128 Ga. App. 16, 195 S.E.2d 455, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1366 (1973) (decided under former Code 1933, § 109A-3-306). Unclean hands did not apply. — Since there was no dispute that the promissory notes at issue were authentic, that the buyers signed the notes, that the sellers’ were the holders, or as to the amount due on the notes, and since a trial court did not err in finding that no novation occurred and that there were no other meritorious defenses, the trial court did not err in finding that the buyers had no defense to the sellers’ suit seeking payment on the notes; however, the equitable doctrine of unclean hands had no applica- 366 tion to an action at law, and the trial court was not authorized to reduce the amounts shown to be due and payable on the notes on account of its finding of unclean hands. Park v. Fortune Ptnr., Inc., 279 Ga. App. 268, 630 S.E.2d 871, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 519 (2006), cert. denied, No. S06C1706, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 703 (Ga. Sept. 8, 2006). Notice Notice of infirmity or defect. — Actual knowledge of infirmity or defect, or knowledge of facts such as to render taking of instrument an act of bad faith is necessary to constitute notice of infirmity under former Code 1933, § 14-506. Equitable Disct. Corp. v. Guest, 103 Ga. App. 258, 118 S.E.2d 864, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 917 (1961) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-506). Words on instrument alluding to underlying transaction. — Mere fact that trade acceptance, otherwise complete and regular upon its face, had printed thereon the words “Trade Acceptance” and “The transaction which gives rise to this instrument is the purchase of goods by the acceptor from the drawer,” was not suffi- 11-3-301 cient to constitute such notice of infirmity in the instrument as to alter status of plaintiff as a bona fide holder in due course. Equitable Disct. Corp. v. Guest, 103 Ga. App. 258, 118 S.E.2d 864, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 917 (1961) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-506). Authority regarding blanks. — Former Code 1933, § 14-214 puts a purchaser of blank paper on inquiry as to authority given regarding blanks. A.J. Cannon & Co. v. Collier, 91 Ga. App. 40, 84 S.E.2d 482, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 854 (1954) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-214). Where payee took check to plaintiff’s place of business with amount in blank and filled in blank with plaintiff’s knowledge, plaintiff was put in same position plaintiff would have been in had payee transferred the check to plaintiff in blank. In either event, plaintiff would be put on inquiry as to payee’s authority relative to amount of check, and when plaintiff took the check, plaintiff did so at peril. A.J. Cannon & Co. v. Collier, 91 Ga. App. 40, 84 S.E.2d 482, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 854 (1954) (decided under former Code 1933, § 14-214).