Legal Opinion
Holman v. Higgins
Tennessee Supreme Court
Decided December 15, 1915PublishedCited by 8 opinions
PROM LINCOLN Appeal from the Chancery Court of Lincoln Connty. —Waltee S. Bearden, Chancellor.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Williams
The suit is based on a promissory note. The defense to which is that there was material alteration of the instrument that rendered it .unenforceable.
R. W. Copeland, desiring to raise money with which to enter business, prepared a note in the following form, and procured six friends to sign the same with him:
“$1£00.
“Twenty-four months after date I promise to pay to the order of --the sum of sixteen hundred dollars, for value received. Interest at &%.
“This July-,1910.
“R. W-. COPELAND.
“Hibam Higgins.
“S. M. BbogaN.
“W. J. Stubbleeielb.
“C. R. G-eobge.
“F. W. Geobge. ,
“R. A. Pitts.”
In August the note…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wood v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Michigan Bank v. EldredSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Columbia Grocery Co. v. MarshallTennessee Supreme Court · 1914
- Gill v. HopkinsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Third Party v. Milton A. Turner, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. MilderNebraska Supreme Court · 1950
- Republic National Bank of Dallas v. StrealyTexas Supreme Court · 1961
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. P. Douglas Morrison Randy Tyree Tennesseans for Tyree George Dukas and Justine Dukas, Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
- Advantage Funding Corp. v. Mid-TN Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.