Bell v. Birmingham
Alabama Court of Appeals
Appeal from Cleburne Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. Hugh D. Merrill. Assumpsit I)}’ J. Iv. Birmingham against N. E. Bell. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant- appeals. The marginal figures were no part of the note, and the Avriting in the body controls. — Prim, et al. v. Ha-mill, 134 Ala. 652; 58 Am. Dec. 333; 53 Am. Dec. 652; 8 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cleburne Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. Hugh D. Merrill. Assumpsit I)}’ J. Iv. Birmingham against N. E. Bell. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant- appeals. The marginal figures were no part of the note, and the Avriting in the body controls. — Prim, et al. v. Ha-mill, 134 Ala. 652; 58 Am. Dec. 333; 53 Am. Dec. 652; 8 Am. St. Rep. 164; 4 A. & E. Enc. of LaAV, 130. This being true, parol evidence is not admissible for the purpose of showing that the figures in the margin was the proper amount for AAdiich the note was given.
1Opinion of the Court
THOMAS, J.- —
The complaint declared on a promissory note for $440, and the instrument introduced in evidence to sustain the averment was a promissory note; but, while it had the figures and dollar mark, “$440.00,” Avritten on the upper left-hand margin of the instrument, at the place usual in common practice, yet it had, in the body of the instrument, as the amounts promised to be paid, “four and forty one/100 dollars.” The defendant (appellant), who had filed, among other pleas, a plea of the general issue, objected to the introduction in evidence by plaintiff of this instrument, on the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Leese v. Atchison & Nebraska RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1888
- Prim & Kimbell v. HammelSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
- Payne v. Clark & Bros.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1853