Hughes v. Spratling
Alabama Court of Appeals
Appeal from Macon Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewer. Assumpsit by John Spratling against John Hughes and another. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. The instrument introduced. in evidence was not a sealed instrument. — Breitling v. Marks, 128 Ala. 222. A bond is not a promissory note. — Phillips v. Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Macon Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewer. Assumpsit by John Spratling against John Hughes and another. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. The instrument introduced. in evidence was not a sealed instrument. — Breitling v. Marks, 128 Ala. 222. A bond is not a promissory note. — Phillips v. Am. G-. Oo., 110 Ala. 521. A variance is properly raised by- a request for the general charge.— N. Y. L. I. Oo. v. McPherson, 137 Ala. 119. No brief reached the Reporter.
1Opinion of the CourtPelham, J.
The complaint declared on a bond under seal, and the writing introduced in evidence did not express or indicate in the body of the instrument a purpose to seal it, and the mere affixing of the letters “L. S.” to the names of the subscribers does not make it a writing under seal.—Breitling v. Marx, 123 Ala. 222, 26 South. 203; Blackwell v. Hamilton, 47 Ala. 470; Carter v. Penn, 4 Ala. 140.
The defendants in the court below, appellants here, requested the general charge in writing, which was refused. There was a variance between the allegations and the proof, in that the appellee declared on a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Phillips v. Americus Guano Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Breitling v. MarxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Carter v. PennSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Blackwell v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1872
- Burton v. DangerfieldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Caton v. First Nat. Bank of OzarkAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924