Sledge v. Tubb
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County Court of Perry. Assumpsit by the plaintiff, against the defendant in error, on a promissory note for $225, dated 25th April, 1837, and due nine months after date.
Read the full summary
Error to the County Court of Perry. Assumpsit by the plaintiff, against the defendant in error, on a promissory note for $225, dated 25th April, 1837, and due nine months after date. The defendant relied on a payment.1' From a bill of exceptions, it appears, that on the 30th April, 1838, the defendant deposited with Lea & Langdon of Mobile, $235, taking from them a receipt to apply the money in payment of a note for $225, given by the defendant to plaintiff’s testator, then in* the hands of H. I. Thornton, of Mobile. There was evidence conducing to prove, that the' note here referred to was…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
From the testimony in the cause, it is manifest that Lea & Langdon were the agents of the defendant, in the receipt of the money deposited with them for the payment of the note in suit, and to cast the loss upon the plaintiff, it must be shown that he agreed to receive the money in their hands as a payment of the debt. It is contended by the counsel for the defendant, that the commencement of a suit against Lea & Langdon for the úse of the plaintiffs, and the judgment obtained is such an election. If it were conceded, that the suit being brought by the attorneys of the plaintiff, with whom…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Van Dyke v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854