Brown v. Turner
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County Court of Choctaw. Before the Hon. Geo. F. Smith, Judge. The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court. The averment of presentation, in this case, is insufficient. The absence of the partners, and the dissolution of the firm, did not authorize the presentment to an agent of one of the partners.
Read the full summary
Error to the County Court of Choctaw. Before the Hon. Geo. F. Smith, Judge. The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court. The averment of presentation, in this case, is insufficient. The absence of the partners, and the dissolution of the firm, did not authorize the presentment to an agent of one of the partners. The bill was not made payable at any particular place, and it was the duty of the holder to ascertain where the acceptors were, and to make presentment to them at the place where they were. Taylor v. Snyder, 3 Denio, 613; Chittyon Bills, 261; 2 Watts & Serg. 401.…
1Opinion of the CourtDargan, J.
This was an action of assumpsit, on a bill of exchange, brought by the indorsee, against the drawer. It is objected, that the declaration does not show, that payment was demanded of Austill & Marshall, the acceptors. The averment is, “ that when said bill became due and payable, to wit, on the 12th day of November., 1844, to.wit, in the city of Mobile, the said bill was presented, and shown by John A. Hitchcock, a notary public, to the agent of said Marshall, one of the firm of Austill & Marshall, both Austill and Marshall being absent from the city, and their partnership being dissolved, and…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Gates v. . BeecherNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- New York & Alabama Contracting Co. v. Selma Savings BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Gates v. BeecherNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- In re the Assignment of CohenNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1885
- In re the Assignment of Jacob S. Cohen & Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1885