
    16152.
    HOLLIDAY v. ELBERTON LOAN AND SAVINGS BANK.
    The defense that the plaintiff was not an innocent purchaser, before maturity, of the notes sued on is not sufficiently made by the defendant’s plea. The averment of notice by publication in a newspaper of his defense to the notes is insufficient as against the special demurrer; and the court did not err in striking the answer.
    Decided May 14, 1925.
    Complaint; from city court of Athens—Judge Bradwell. November 29, 1924.
    The allegation as to notice was demurred to on the ground that “it fails to specify or name to what officer or officers of plaintiff .bank said alleged newspaper notice was ‘brought home/ or how or in what manner it ivas ‘brought home’ to plaintiff or any of its officers or agents. Said plea fails to allege that any officer of plaintiff bank saw said notice, or read it, or knew of it. Said plea fails to show that the particular officer who bought said notes saw said notice, or knew of it, before taking said notes.”
    
      West & West, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Tutt & Brown, W. K. Meadow, contra.
   Luke, J.

Elberton Loan & Savings Bank bought from W. 0. Jones two promissory notes executed by Paul L. Holliday. The consideration of the notes, as shown by a contemporaneous contract in writing, was one automobile. To an action on the notes Holliday pleaded, in substance, that the automobile was not as represented, and could not be operated with any satisfaction, for several reasons which he named; that the Elberton Loan & Savings Bank was not an innocent purchaser before maturity, because he had published in a named newspaper of the city of Elberton, where the plaintiff resided, “a notice putting all persons on notice not to trade for or otherwise invest in said notes, as the same were uncollectible and the consideration of the same had totally failed, which notice was brought home to the plaintiff, its officers in charge of said banking institution,” and because the notes were purchased from a rival in business, and because of interlineations, erasures, or substitutes of numbers in the contract which described the automobile. The court sustained demurrers to the answer and it was stricken.

The court properly sustained the' demurrer to the answer. The answer was insufficient to show that the Elberton Loan & Savings Bank was not an innocent holder of the notes sued upon, for value before maturity. The averment of notice by publication in a newspaper of the defenses that would be urged to the notes was wholly insufficient to withstand the special demurrer thereto. By law the plaintiff was entitled to the judgment which it. received against the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur.  