
    11846.
    Benton Transfer Company v. Marion National Bank.
    Decided March 26, 1921.
    Complaint; from .city court of Savannah1 — Judge Freeman. July 12, 1920.
    The Marion National Bank sued Benton Transfer Company on a promissory note originally payable to Indiana Truck Corporation, and dated September 10, 1917, upon the back of which was the indorsement set out in the foregoing decision. In the defendant’s answer it was contended that the plaintiff was “not a holder of said promissory note in due course, and the alleged transfer was and is not an indorsement of said note within the law merchant, but was and is a mere assignment by Indiana Truck Corporation to the Marion National Bank of all its right, title and interest in and to the said note and in and to the said Indiana motor-trucks,” and the plaintiff took and held the note subject to all the defenses and equities of the defendant to which the note was subject in the hands of Indiana Truck Corporation; and it was alleged that on October 17, 1916, Indiana Truck Corporation sold to the defendant a certain truck and agreed to maintain a service station and service truck in Savannah during the life of the truck sold, but that it failed to do so, and for stated periods this failure deprived the defendant of the use of the trucks purchased from the truck corporation; to the defendant’s damage in a stated sum, which it was alleged the defendant had the right to set off against the note.
   Hill, J.

The words, “ Eor value received we hereby assign, transfer, and set over to the Marion National Bank all our right, title, and interest in and to the within note and in and to the said Indiana Motor Trucks for which this note was executed,” written on the back of a promissory note and signed by the payee, is an indorsement oi[ the note. Vanzant v. Arnold, 31 Ga. 210(2) ; Baldwin Fertilizer Co. v. Carmichael, 116 Ga. 762 (42 S. E. 1002) ; Hendrix v. Beuhard, 138 Ga. 473 (75 S. E. 588, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1028, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 688).

2. The defenses attempted to be set up not coming within any'of the provisions of section 4286 of the Civil Code (1910), the trial court did not err in striking them and in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, especially in view of the fact that in this case the pleadings showed that the defense relied upon was in no wise connected with the transaction put of which grew the note sued on. \

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., eonew.

Saussy &.Saussy, for plaintiff in error.

Jacob Gazan, contra.  