Prout v. Branch Bank at Decatur
Supreme Court of Alabama
Wkit of error to the Circuit Court of Morgan county. Motion by the Bank for judgment against the Prouts, as the endorsers of a bill of exchange drawn by Rhea & Ross, upon and accepted by Gamble, Murrah & Co., dated 12th September, 1838, at 8 months. The bill is payable to Isaac H. Walker, who endorsed it to the defendants, who endorsed it to Toby, Connor & Co. who endorsed it to Reese & Co. who endorsed it to the Bank.
Read the full summary
Wkit of error to the Circuit Court of Morgan county. Motion by the Bank for judgment against the Prouts, as the endorsers of a bill of exchange drawn by Rhea & Ross, upon and accepted by Gamble, Murrah & Co., dated 12th September, 1838, at 8 months. The bill is payable to Isaac H. Walker, who endorsed it to the defendants, who endorsed it to Toby, Connor & Co. who endorsed it to Reese & Co. who endorsed it to the Bank. The defendants pleaded in bar that the plaintiffs gave day of payment after the maturity of the bill to the drawers. The delay is alleged to have been given by a certain deed…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
1. It must be conceded, that here there has been a valid contract between the Bank and one of the drawers of the bill, for indulgence; and, therefore, the principal question is, whether the reservation in the deed is effectual, to continue in force the right of the bank to enforce payment from these defendants as indorsers, after the expiration of the time for which indulgence was stipulated. We say after the time, because no question arises whether the suit could be brought during the period for which delay was agreed to be given. To determine this question, it is necessary to ascertain what…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bailey v. BaldwinNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Inge v. Branch Bank of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838
3Cited by1 opinion
- The Hardaway Company, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Amwest Surety Insurance Company, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1993