Stone v. Goldberg
Alabama Court of Appeals
Appeal from Shelby County Court. Heard, before Hon. E. S. Lyman. Action by Goldberg & Lewis against J. D. Masters and J. H. Stone. Judgment for plaintiffs against defendant Stone, and he appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Shelby County Court. Heard, before Hon. E. S. Lyman. Action by Goldberg & Lewis against J. D. Masters and J. H. Stone. Judgment for plaintiffs against defendant Stone, and he appeals. Plea 9 is as folknvs: “That the notes sued on were executed by one P. L. Bay, payable to Goldberg & Lewis, or order, and that the defendant signed said notes as surety, and defendant, relying upon that representation, and believing that said signatures on said notes were the bona fide signatures of said J. D. Masters, signed the same as surety as aforesaid; but defendant avers that said J. D. Masters…
1Opinion
On Rehearing.
THOMAS, J.
Section 5013 of the Code provides: “In the hands of any holder other than a holder in due course, a negotiable instrument is subject to the same defense as if it were non-negotiable.” Counsel for appellees, Golberg & Lewis, insist on rehearing that the appellees are “holders in due course” of the instrument sued on, which is a negotiable paper, and that it is not open in their hands to the defenses set up in the pleas. This presents for consideration the sole question: Can the payee of a negotiable instrument be a “holder in due course” as against the makers? We think…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Shaw v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Va. & Tenn. R. R. v. SayersSupreme Court of Virginia · 1875
- Marks v. First National BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
- First National Bank v. DawsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- McCormack v. Nassau Electric RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.