Monarch Refrigerating Co. v. Faulk
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
GARDNER, Justice.
The suit is by appellant against appellee on a judgment procured in the state of Illinois. The cause is here argued by appellant, acquiesced in by appellee, upon the assumption that the notes forming the basis of the judgment were dated and made payable in Chicago, 111.; though actually executed in Alabama. And, so considered, appellant insists that as to the matter of jurisdiction the rule of the place of performance governs, and that as the notes were payable in Illinois, the law of that state controls, citing Poole v. Perkins, 126 Va. 331, 101 S. E. 240, 18 A. L. R. 1509;…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Haddock v. HaddockSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Thompson v. WhitmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Wisconsin v. Pelican InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Fauntleroy v. LumSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- McElmoyle Ex Rel. Bailey v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- W. H. Barber Co. v. HughesIndiana Supreme Court · 1945
- Bush v. GreerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Wilson v. LeeCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1981
- Barnes v. HiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Loudonville Milling Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1946
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.