Legal Opinion

South v. First Nat. Bank

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 11, 1920No. 6 Div. 100PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Petition of J. F. South for certiorari to Court of Appeals, to review and revise the judgment and decision of said court (88-South. 219* 1), rendered on his appeal in an action against him by the First National Bank of Fayette.

Read the full summary

Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Petition of J. F. South for certiorari to Court of Appeals, to review and revise the judgment and decision of said court (88-South. 219* 1), rendered on his appeal in an action against him by the First National Bank of Fayette. Unless the conditions are complied with, there is no agreement tp pay. 106 Ala. 561, 17 South. 534; 144 Ala. 166, 39 South. 898; 194 Ala. 672, 69 South. 894. On these authorities the court erred in sustaining demurrers to the pleas. The instrument is not negotiable. 63 Ala. 547, 35 Am. Rep. 57; 103 Ala. 497, 15 South. 741; 8 C. J. 118.…

1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.

[1-4] Although the complaint refers to the instrument sued on as a promissory note, and the instrument itself refers to the money agreed to be paid as a donation, it is clear from its terms that it is simply a subscription to procure the construction of a designated public road — a “state highway road leading from Fayette to Bluff to Guin, Ala.” Being payable conditionally upon the completion of such a highway, it is not technically a promissory note (Louisville Banking Co. v. Gray, 123 Ala. 254, 26 South. 205, 82 Am. St. Rep. 120); and, while there may have been a technical variance between…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brokaw v. McElroySupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
  2. Merchants Building Improvement Co. v. Chicago Exchange Building Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church v. GarveyIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
  4. Owenby v. Georgia Baptist AssemblySupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
  5. Cairns v. DanielAlabama Court of Appeals · 1917

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Huron Lodge No. 444 of the Benevolent & Protective Order v. HinckleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API