Hull v. Planters & Merchants Bank of Mobile
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Chancery Court at Mobile. This case was argued at the same time'with the case of Hal! v. Hallett and others, at the hist term. it. will lie seen, however, from the opinion of the court in which the facts are sufficiently stated, that it is entirely dissimilar.
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
It was contended in argument, that this case is identical in principle with the case of Hall v. Hallett, et al. decided at the present term. In that case, it was held, that receiving, a negotiable note by indorsement, m payment and discharge of a pre-existing debt, was a taking in the usual course of trade, and that the holder was not affected by the equities between the original parties, of which he had no notice.
*762The facts of this case are briefly these: The complainant, Hull, purchased lots in the city of Mobile, from one Solomon Andrews, and executed his notes therefor, payable in bank,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Andrews v. McCoySupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Borum v. King's Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861