Kirksey v. Bates
Supreme Court of Alabama
This was an action of assumpsit, on an inland hill of exchange, protested for non-payment. On the trial, an exception was taken to the notarial seal, as being insufficient to establish the protest, because it did not appear to have been engraved with the arms of the State, as directed by the statute; and because, instead of being subscribed with the name of the notary, it contained the initials of his name only.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, on an inland hill of exchange, protested for non-payment. On the trial, an exception was taken to the notarial seal, as being insufficient to establish the protest, because it did not appear to have been engraved with the arms of the State, as directed by the statute; and because, instead of being subscribed with the name of the notary, it contained the initials of his name only. The objection was overruled, and a verdict rendered for plaintiff. Plaintiff here assigned for error, the admission of the protest as evidence.
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
— By the act of eighteen hundred and three, entitled “ an act concerning notaries public,” (Aik. Dig. 326,) the Governor is invested with power to appoint a competent number of notaries public, of persons resident within the then territority,not to exceed in number more than two, to reside in any one county. The notaries thus appointed, are authorised to administer oaths or affirmations according to law, in all matters belonging or incident to their notarial office — to receive proof or acknowledgement of all instruments of writing relating to commerce or navigation — such as bills of sale,…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Chandler v. HannaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Carroll v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
- Donegan & Tabor v. WoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1873
- Opinion of the JusticesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1906
- Goree v. WadsworthSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.