Leigh v. Lightfoot
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writ of Error to the County Court of Lawrence. This was an action of assumpsit at the suit of the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs, as the drawers of -a bill of exchange. The first count of the declaration is on the bill, to which are added the common counts.
Read the full summary
Writ of Error to the County Court of Lawrence. This was an action of assumpsit at the suit of the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs, as the drawers of -a bill of exchange. The first count of the declaration is on the bill, to which are added the common counts. On the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence the bill declared on, which is as follows: “Leighton, 1 March, 1843 — #1171 78. Twelve months after date of this, my first of exchange, second of the same tenor and date, pay to the order of John L. Townes, eleven hundred and seventy-one 78-100 dollars, value received, which…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
In the Branch Bank at Decatur v. *938Rhodes, at this term, the bill on which the defendant was charged as an indorser, was drawn on “Gamble & Murray,” and that copied on the protest was addreseed to “ Gamble & Murrahthe circuit court excluded the protest, because it did not correctly set forth the bill. We said it was certainly the correct practice to copy the bill upon the protest, yet if it were not literally transcribed, but the protest identified it by a description so minute as to leave no ground for mistake, we should be inclined to hesitate before we would pronounce against it. Without…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mills v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Knapp v. McBrideSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- State v. BrinyeaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
3Cited by3 opinions
- Carter v. OdomSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Knott v. VenableSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868
- Bryant v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857