Legal Opinion
Bailey v. Galbreath Bros.
Tennessee Supreme Court
Decided March 8, 1898PublishedCited by 4 opinions
FROM SHELBY. Appeal from Chancery Court of Shelby County. SteeliNg Pierson, Ch.
1Opinion of the CourtMcAlister, J.
The object of this bill is to hold the defendants liable for a certain forged note sold by them to complainant.
Defendants, Galbreath Bros., were stock and note brokers in the city of Memphis. On July 3, 1895, *600complainant, Bailey, purchased of Galbreath Bros, one note for $2,750, drawn by A. K. Ward, as secretary and treasurer of the Memphis Barrel & Heading Company, apparently indorsed by J. L. Wel-ford, Wm. A. Williamson, A. K. Ward, and W. F. Taylor. The names of all' the indorsers, excepting that of Ward, were forged. The theory of the bill is that the defendants, in selling this paper to.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Meeker v. . ClaghornNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Humes v. Decatur Land Im. & Furnace Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Worthington v. CowlesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hammond v. Herbert Hood Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1948
- Siler v. PerkinsTennessee Supreme Court · 1912
- Morehouse v. WinterAppellate Court of Illinois · 1910
- William White Co., Inc. v. LichterCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1933