Cocke v. Branch Bank at Mobile
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writ of error- to the County Court of Mobile county. MOTION by the Bank for a judgment against the defendants, as makers of a promissary note. The defendants pleaded non assumpsit; and it was agreed between the parties that this should stand as a plea of non est factum, denying the execution of the note and its indorsement by Lea & Langdon, the payees.
Read the full summary
Writ of error- to the County Court of Mobile county. MOTION by the Bank for a judgment against the defendants, as makers of a promissary note. The defendants pleaded non assumpsit; and it was agreed between the parties that this should stand as a plea of non est factum, denying the execution of the note and its indorsement by Lea & Langdon, the payees. At the trial, the plaintiffs produced a note for the sum of $4609, signed, J. F. & W. Cocke, payable to Lea & Langdon, and indorsed thus: Lea & Langdon, in liquidation. The plaintiffs then proved that the signature was in the hand writing of J.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
1. The first and most important question to be determined here is, whether Woodson Cocke is bound to the payment of the note, executed in the partnership name by his partner.
It is not denied that a copartnership may be formed with respect to any legal business, and the acts of one, with reference to any matter connected with the joint business, will bind the others; but it is insisted that the liability of a partner to pay a note executed by his co-partner, when it is has been put in circulation without any consideration connected with the partnership business, only extends to cases of…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Deardorf's Administrator v. ThacherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- McCrary v. SlaughterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
- Pease v. ColeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1885
- Woodruff v. ScaifeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Lee v. First National Bank of Fort ScottSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.