Legal Opinion

Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Pratt City Sav. Bank

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 16, 1930No. 6 Div. 369PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBouldin, J.

Code forms of complaint on bills and notes make no distinction between negotiable and nonnegotiable paper. They are inclusive, are to be used in suits upon either class of instrument. Code 1923, § 9531, Forms 1, 2, 3 and 4.

No specific form is provided for suit on a promissory note by indorsee against maker. Form 3, indorsee against drawer of a bill of exchange, furnishes a sufficient analogy. The complaint in this cause was not subject to demurrer.

None of these Code forms allege the facts which distinguish negotiable from nonnegotiable instruments. Code, §§ 9029 and 9202. No occasion arises…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Elmore County Bank v. AvantSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  2. Alabama National Bank v. HalseySupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
  3. Somerall v. Citizens' BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  4. Tatum v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  5. Feore v. TrammelSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. O'Bar v. Southern Life Health Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1936
  2. Norris v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  3. Alaga Coach Line, Inc. v. McCarrollSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  4. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Yeilding Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  5. Cherry v. HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1968

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API