Wallace v. Peck
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County Court of Tuscaloosa. This was an action of assumpsit by the plaintiffs in error, against the defendants in error, and was here at a previous term of this court. [10 Ala. 142.] The facts as they now appear, are, that the defendants in error, as attorneys at law, received from the plaintiffs a note for collection on Lamkin, Gilkey & Co. for $146 26, payable to the order of Jeremiah Boyd, and indorsed in blank by him.
Read the full summary
Error to the County Court of Tuscaloosa. This was an action of assumpsit by the plaintiffs in error, against the defendants in error, and was here at a previous term of this court. [10 Ala. 142.] The facts as they now appear, are, that the defendants in error, as attorneys at law, received from the plaintiffs a note for collection on Lamkin, Gilkey & Co. for $146 26, payable to the order of Jeremiah Boyd, and indorsed in blank by him. The money was collected by Peck & Clark, and transmitted to Boyd, they supposing him to be the person entitled to receive it. The plaintiffs offered the…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
We will first consider the competency of Trevor as a witness for the plaintiffs. The opinion of the witness, that he had no interest in the question, because he held the plaintiffs responsible to him, will not render him competent, if in fact he was interested. It is insisted that he had an interest, because the verdict, and judgment, would be evidence for him, in an action by the witness against the plaintiffs, and that is our opinion. It is admitted, and also established by the evidence of Trevor, that the plaintiffs are suing for this money as the agents of Trevor, it having been sent by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Davidson v. ShipmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- Robinson v. WindhamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1839