Beal v. Wainwright, Shields & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Wmt of Error to the Circuit Court of Tuskaloosa. This was an action of assumpsit, at the suit of the defendants in error against the plaintiffs, on a pomissory note, of the following tenor. “f 1,824 37. New-York, August 25, 1836. Twelve months after date, we, the subscribers, of Erie, State of Ala., promise to pay to the order of Granger, Birch, & Co., eighteen hundred and twenty-four dollars and thirty-seven cents, at the Merchants’ Bank, New-York, for value received.
Read the full summary
Wmt of Error to the Circuit Court of Tuskaloosa. This was an action of assumpsit, at the suit of the defendants in error against the plaintiffs, on a pomissory note, of the following tenor. “f 1,824 37. New-York, August 25, 1836. Twelve months after date, we, the subscribers, of Erie, State of Ala., promise to pay to the order of Granger, Birch, & Co., eighteen hundred and twenty-four dollars and thirty-seven cents, at the Merchants’ Bank, New-York, for value received. Beal & Bennett.” On which note, are the following indorsements, viz. “New-York, February 24, 1837, Granger, Birch & Co.”…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
If the note declared on be negotiable, according to the laws of the State in which it was made, even conceding as argued for the plaintiffs in error, that the lex fori must determine whether a set-off is admissible against an indorsee, does it follow that the set-off was improperly rejected by the circuit court? The negotiability of the note in New-York, has not been questioned, but seems to have been conceded at the argu-*159mentupon the principles of commercial law, which, in the absence of opposing legislation, must prevail there. Our statute of 1828, enacts, that the remedy on promissory…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Pond v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845