Legal Opinion

Guiterman, Rosenfield & Co. v. Culbreth

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided May 23, 1929No. 4 Div. 429PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSayre, J.

The terms of the notes in suit and the circumstances under which they were negotiated are stated in the opinion on a former appeal, and need not be repeated. Culbreath v. Guiterman, Rosenfield & Co., 217 Ala. 259, 115 So. 303. It was then held that the notes in suit were negotiable according to the law merchant; but that it was a question of fact whether plaintiffs had notice of the terms of the contract limiting the liability of defendants, for the reason that there was evidence tending to show that the contract went into the hands of plaintiffs along with the notes, and that such evidence…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Elmore County Bank v. AvantSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  2. Somerall v. Citizens' BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  3. German-American National Bank v. LewisAlabama Court of Appeals · 1913
  4. Culbreath v. Guiterman, Rosenfield & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  5. Sewell v. Nolen BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sawyer v. StanleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
  2. Ex Parte EnzorSupreme Court of Alabama · 1960
  3. Richards v. Lennox Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1990
  4. Ex Parte ClarkCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1993
  5. Royal Tire Service, Inc. v. Shades Valley Boys' ClubSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API