Opinion
36683.
DECIDED MAY 28, 1957.
Action on note; nonsuit. Before Judge Brooke. Fannin Superior Court. February 9, 1957.
Essley B. Burdine, William Butt, Herman J. Spence, for plaintiff in error.
A. J. Martin, H. G. Vandiviere, H. L. Buffington, Jr., contra.
Authority to transfer a note of a corporation is not presumed to be in an officer where there is nothing appearing other than that such person is an officer. There being no evidence that the president had authority to transfer the note in the instant case, no similar acts of the president having been ratified and the corporate seal not appearing on the transfer, the note was properly excluded from evidence, and it was not erroneous to grant a nonsuit.
DECIDED MAY 28, 1957.
L. V. Matthews brought suit in the Superior Court of Fannin County against J. E. Griffin, alleging that the defendant was indebted to him in the sum of $2,818.48 principal, plus interest and attorney's fees on a promissory note executed in favor of Atlanta Door Window Corporation, the plaintiff alleging present ownership of the note. The suit resulted in an order granting a nonsuit. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial on the general grounds and amended by adding one special ground. This motion was denied, and on this judgment the case is here for review.
By a second amendment to the answer the defendant filed a plea of non est factum and denied the validity of the signature of H. M. Rogers to the transfer and "he had no right to transfer same." Upon hearing, the court passed the following order: "The above case coming on for trial at the April term, 1956, of Fannin Superior Court a jury having been empaneled and the plaintiff having introduced evidence and rested his case whereupon the defendant having made a motion for a nonsuit which motion of the defendant is hereby granted and a nonsuit declared."
The plea of non est factum challenged the authority of the president of the corporation to transfer the note in question to the plaintiff. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show a valid signature by a person with the authority to execute it as against a proper plea of non est factum by the defendant. The authority to transfer a note is not presumed to be in the officer of a corporation, nothing else appearing but the fact that such person is such officer. Such authority is presumed where the seal of the corporation appears. It does not appear on this instrument. Such authority is presumed where it appears from the evidence that such officer is in active charge of the management of its affairs, and the act is in the furtherance of its affairs. There is no evidence in this record that the president of the corporation was in active charge of the management of the affairs of the corporation. Such authority may be presumed where other acts of a similar nature have been done, and ratified by the corporation. Nothing to the effect appears here. Brown v. Bass, 132 Ga. 41 ( 63 S.E. 788).
The trial court properly excluded the note from evidence and granted the nonsuit.
Judgment affirmed. Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.