Hall v. Chilton
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Benton. THIS was an action of assumpsit in the Court below, by the plaintiff in error, against the defendants in error. The declaration, in substance alleges, that one Charles S, Lewis, on the 1st September, 1833, made his promissory note, by which he promised to pay to the defendant, R. R. Chilton, or bearer, five hundred and fifty dollars, on the first of January, 1840, with interest from the date.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Benton. THIS was an action of assumpsit in the Court below, by the plaintiff in error, against the defendants in error. The declaration, in substance alleges, that one Charles S, Lewis, on the 1st September, 1833, made his promissory note, by which he promised to pay to the defendant, R. R. Chilton, or bearer, five hundred and fifty dollars, on the first of January, 1840, with interest from the date. That afterwards Rezin R. Chilton, on the 12th February, 1839, by the style and description of R. R. Chilton & J. A. McCampbell, assigned the said note to the…
1Opinion of the Court
ORMOND, J
Since the passage of the act of 1828, declaring and defining the liability of assignors of instruments not mercantile in their character, the question has been several times before this Court, and several exceptions have been en-grafted on the law, as necessarily growing out of it. Thus in Woodcock v. Campbell, 2 Porter 456, where the maker mov*635ed out of the State, after the transfer of the note, it was held, that to charge the assignor it was necessary to sue the maker in the State to which he removed.
In Ivey v. Sanderson, 6 Porter, 420, the maker resided beyond the limits of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Woodcock v. CampbellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1835
- Bristow v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
- Ivey v. SandersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838
3Cited by2 opinions
- Price v. LavenderSupreme Court of Alabama · 1862
- Fulford v. Johnson, Hendon & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1849