Tennessee Valley Bank v. Williams
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
GARDNER, Chief Justice.
The suit is on a negotiable promissory note by an indorsee against the maker. The meritorious question in the case is whether the plaintiff is a holder in due course. Undisputedly the note was signed by the defendant, negotiated and indorsed by the payee before maturity upon payment of the full face value with interest to date of indorsement. The defense is rested upon the theory of misrepresentations made to him by the president of the payee bank, and defendant’s proof suffices to establish such fraud as to constitute a defense as between the payee and the maker. But…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Goodman v. SimondsSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
- King v. DoaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Forbes v. First Nat. Bank of EnidSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Southern Ry. Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Gigoux v. MooreSupreme Court of Kansas · 1919
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Tennessee Valley Bank v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1945
- Brockway v. United States Finance CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1972