Chaudron v. Hunt & Norris
Supreme Court of Alabama
Hunt and Norris, copartners, declared in assumpsit in Marengo Circuit Court, against Ed. Chaudron, alleging that the defendant had executed his promissory note on the 4th of June, 1825, promising to pay to the plaintiffs or order, #155 71, on the 1st of January, 1826, and averred that the note “was lost by misfortune, as appears by the affidavit here produced and shewn to the Court.”
Read the full summary
Hunt and Norris, copartners, declared in assumpsit in Marengo Circuit Court, against Ed. Chaudron, alleging that the defendant had executed his promissory note on the 4th of June, 1825, promising to pay to the plaintiffs or order, #155 71, on the 1st of January, 1826, and averred that the note “was lost by misfortune, as appears by the affidavit here produced and shewn to the Court.” At the time of the issuance of the writ, an affidavit was filed, in which one of the plaintiffs swore that the plaintiffs owned ihe note, and that by some misfortune it was lost by thorn. The affidavit did not…
1Opinion of the Court
By JUDGE SAFFOLD.
The declaration having been demurred to, all the material facts alleged therein are of course to be taken as true. But the plaintiff in error is not understood to rely on any defect in the manner or form of pleading. The objection is, that an action at law will not lie on an assignable lost note, especially if lost previous to its maturity; nor upon a note tranfera-ble by delivery; or made payable to order, and indorsed in blank; because as is contended, in either case, the instrument may fall into the hands of a bona fide holder, who would thereby acquire an indefeasible…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bell v. MooreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Brown v. BrownNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1879