Evans v. Gordon
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County court of Wilcox county. ' Assumpsit against the endorser of a promissory note. This action was brought upon a note endorsed by the plaintiff in error, which note was payable to the order of Thomas Evans, negotiable and payable at the Branch Bank at Mobile, and endorsed by said Thomas Evans. The declaration averred, demand and protest, and the pleas were — 1. Non-assumpsit. 2. That the note was not the property of the plaintiff, in his individual capacity.
Read the full summary
Error to the County court of Wilcox county. ' Assumpsit against the endorser of a promissory note. This action was brought upon a note endorsed by the plaintiff in error, which note was payable to the order of Thomas Evans, negotiable and payable at the Branch Bank at Mobile, and endorsed by said Thomas Evans. The declaration averred, demand and protest, and the pleas were — 1. Non-assumpsit. 2. That the note was not the property of the plaintiff, in his individual capacity. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff below. On the trial of the cause, plaintiff proved that the note was given for…
1Per curiam
— The note sued on, being payable in bank, is by statute governed by the rules of the iaw merchant — (Aik. Dig. 329, s. 11.)
It was not necessary to sue the maker to insolvency, in order to enable the holder to maintain a suit against the endorser, as is required by the same statute, when the note is not payable in bank. ^
*348The other objection is equally unsustainable. The consideration of the note was shewn to be property or effects belonging to the estate, of which the defendant in error was the executor; and in such a case, the contract is considered as made with the individual, and he need…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Games v. ManningSupreme Court of Iowa · 1849
- Ripka v. PopeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1850