Whatley v. Muscogee Bank
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Lee Law and Equity Court. Heard.before Hon. Lum Duke. Assumpsit by the Muscogee Bank against L. A. Whatley. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. The complaint declared simply on a promissory note. The pleas set up failure and want of consideration, and that the note was secured under false and fraudulent pretenses, the facts being therein set out.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lee Law and Equity Court. Heard.before Hon. Lum Duke. Assumpsit by the Muscogee Bank against L. A. Whatley. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. The complaint declared simply on a promissory note. The pleas set up failure and want of consideration, and that the note was secured under false and fraudulent pretenses, the facts being therein set out. The replication set up that Muscogee Bank was a general banking institution engaged in a general banking business, and that it purchased the note sued on in the…
1Opinion of the CourtSayre, J.
The complaint does not allege that the note sued upon contained negotiable words, that is, was made payable to. “order” or “bearer,” and, for aught there appearing it was nonnegotiable. — Code, §§ 4958, 4665, 4966; 7 Cyc. 606. To avoid the defenses stated in the several special pleas, it was necessary that the replications should show the negotiability of the note. — 14 Ene. PI. & Pr. 518, 525. The fifth ground of demurrer to the special replications should have been sustained.
Reversed and remanded.
Anderson, C. J., and. McClellan and Gardner, JJ., concur.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Foley v. HardySupreme Court of Kansas · 1927
- Quarles v. Kendrick Mercantile Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1918
- Simpson v. E. C. Payne Lumber Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1919
- Simpson v. E. C. Payne Lumber Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1919