Perkins Oil Co. v. Davis
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
KNIGHT, Justice.
Suit by holder of a promissory note against an accommodation indorser. The rights of a bona fide holder, in due course, before maturity, are not involved. Under the pleadings and evidence in the case, any defense open to the defendant as against plaintiff’s assignor, is equally available to him against the plaintiff. Code, § 9084; Fortson v. Bishop, 204 Ala. 524, 86 So. 399.
The plaintiff’s case is stated in count 2, in which the note is set out in full, including the indorsement upon the back of the note, under which defendant’s name is signed.
The defendant filed quite a…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Holczstein v. Bessemer Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. KimbrellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Jefferson County Savings Bank v. ComptonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Futvoye v. ChuitesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co v. BeasleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Jackson v. SampleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Marigold Coal, Incorporated v. ThamesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1962
- Colafrancesco v. Crown Pontiac-GMC, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1986
- Camargo Cadillac Co. v. Garfield Enterprises, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1982
- Steiner Bros. v. SlifkinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.