Lester v. Bank of Mobile
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County Court of Mobile. MotioN by the Bank against the defendant, as indorser of a promissory note for $2,627, dated 28th March, 1842, payable four months after date, negotiable and payable at the Bank of Mobile.
Read the full summary
Error to the County Court of Mobile. MotioN by the Bank against the defendant, as indorser of a promissory note for $2,627, dated 28th March, 1842, payable four months after date, negotiable and payable at the Bank of Mobile. The judgment entry, after reciting the notice, proceeds, and the said President, Directors, &c., here produces, and shows, the certificate of William R. Hallett, its President, that the said debt is really, and bona fide, the property of the said Bank; and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court» that ten days notice of this motion has been given to the said Jonah…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
— In Roberts v. The State Bank, 9 Porter, 312, we held, that the Courts would judicially notice who was the President of the State Bank, without proof of his signature; but in Crawford v. the Branch Bank at Mobile, at the last term, it was determined, that it was different where the officer certifying the debt, was only President pro tem., in which event, proof would be necessary of his power to do the act. So, also, in the case of Crawford v. The Planters’ and M. Bank, 6 Ala. Rep. 289, we held such proof necessary, because the Bank was not a public institution, but a mere private corporation.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Crawford v. Planters' & Merchants' Bank of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- Roberts v. State BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1839
- Branch Bank v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
3Cited by2 opinions
- Zimmern v. Standard Motor Car Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Hand v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865