Eaton v. Kikeman
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lauderdale. Tried before the Hon. B.obt. Douhherty. This action was brought by James J. Xirkman, as the assignee of Charles Goolcin, against Emerson H. Eaton and Henry 0. Wood; and was founded on the defendants'’ promissory note for $267, dated November 4, 1856, and payable five days after date, to Charles Gookin, or order, by -whom it was assigned, without recourse, to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lauderdale. Tried before the Hon. B.obt. Douhherty. This action was brought by James J. Xirkman, as the assignee of Charles Goolcin, against Emerson H. Eaton and Henry 0. Wood; and was founded on the defendants'’ promissory note for $267, dated November 4, 1856, and payable five days after date, to Charles Gookin, or order, by -whom it was assigned, without recourse, to the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded nil debent, and want of consideration, with leave to give in evidence under the former plea any special matter of defense; and a trial was had on issue…
1Opinion of the Court
A. J. WALKER, O. J.
The only objection made to the competency of the witness Hargraves was, “that he was in fact the assignor of the note” sued upon. If Hargraves was the plaintiffs assignor, he was incompetent, under section 2290 of the Code, only to prove the cause of action. Under the pleadings in this case, defenses may have been made, which did not dispute the original existence of the cause of action, but asserted “ a payment, release, or other matter in discharge of the debt.”— 1 Chitty on Pleading, 481-82. While, if the assignor or transferror, he would not be a competent witness to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wynne v. WhisenantSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- Bell v. ChambersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1863
- Crymes v. White & JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861