Glassell v. Mason
Supreme Court of Alabama
[ACTION ON LOST BOND, BT TKANSFEIÍREE AGAINST OBLIGOR.] Appeal from tbe City Court of Mobile. Tried before tbe Hou. Alex. McBjnstby. The complaint in this case, as amended, was as follows: “W. Leroy Mason v Tbe plaintiff claims of the dews. Ifendant the sum of $483 65, due by Andrew Grlassell.
Read the full summary
[ACTION ON LOST BOND, BT TKANSFEIÍREE AGAINST OBLIGOR.] Appeal from tbe City Court of Mobile. Tried before tbe Hou. Alex. McBjnstby. The complaint in this case, as amended, was as follows: “W. Leroy Mason v Tbe plaintiff claims of the dews. Ifendant the sum of $483 65, due by Andrew Grlassell. J bond executed by plaintiff on the 6th August, 1845, and bearing interest from the first of February, 1845; which bond was payable to Charlotte Thornton, and has been by her transferred and assigned to plaintiff, with all her right thereunto; which bond was lost before the commencement of this suit.…
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
We do not feel called upon to decide the question, whether a lust note or bond can be so endorsed or assigned as to vest the legal title in another. Under the Code, (§ 2129,) “ every action -.founded upon a promissory note, bond, or other contract, express or implied, for the payment of money, must be prosecuted in the *722name of the party really interested, whether he have the legal title or not.” "We feel satisfied, that a debt created by bond, which bond has been lost, is still a debt or contract for the payment of money, and is embraced by the section of the Code above copied.
[2.] The rule…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brister v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Thomas v. DegraffenreidSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
3Cited by4 opinions
- Powell v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1972
- Gibson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1938
- Tapscott v. GibsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Mobile County v. SandsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1900