Glass v. Meyer, Son & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Perry Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. John Moore. Mayer, Son & Co. sued E. B. Glass. The opinion sufficiently states the facts. — General charge should not have been given. — Anderson r. Timherlake, 22 So. 3?ep. 431. — Glass had no authority to bind his wife1, not having it in writing. — Strauss v. Glass, 18 So. Hep. 528; Scott v. Cotton, 91 Ala.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Perry Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. John Moore. Mayer, Son & Co. sued E. B. Glass. The opinion sufficiently states the facts. — General charge should not have been given. — Anderson r. Timherlake, 22 So. 3?ep. 431. — Glass had no authority to bind his wife1, not having it in writing. — Strauss v. Glass, 18 So. Hep. 528; Scott v. Cotton, 91 Ala. G23. And he therefore became personally bound by signing the notice. — Lazarus v. Shearer, 2 Ala. 718; Story on Agency, §2(54; Sail v. Cockrill, 28 Ala. 507; Belisle v. Glarl;, Hurt- & Go., 49 Ala. 98; Bell v. Teague, 85 Ala. 211; Dexter…
1Opinion of the CourtTyson, J.
— This action aauis instituted by the plaintiffs as transferees and holders of tAvo promissory notes, negotiable and payable at the Planters & Merchants Bank of Pniontown, Alabama, for Aralue before maturity. The complaint contained tAvo counts declaring upon each of the notes sued upon and alleged in legal •effect Avhat we haAre said above.
To the complaint, the defendant filed tAvo pleas. A demurrer Avas sustained to the plea first filed by him. Plea No. 2 as amended Avas in substance as follows: 'That on the 1st day of January, 1892, one Pullen, the *334payee in the note sued upon, sold to Emma…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Mudge v. TreatSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- Pritchett v. Pollock & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1886
- Tuskaloosa Cotton-Seed Oil Co. v. PerrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Masterson v. GibsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- Seymour & Co. v. FarquharSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Bienville Water Supply Co. v. City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1899
- Cunningham Hardware Co. v. Louisville N. R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1923
- Clinton Mining Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Memphis & Charleston Railroad v. MartinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1901
- Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. DensonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.