Whitman v. Farmers Bank of Chattahoochie
Supreme Court of Alabama
birr or to the Circuit court of Montgomery. Assumpsit on a bill of exchange, tried by Crenshaw, J. At the trial of this cause, the plaintiffs to the action gave in evidence the bill of exchange described in the declaration, and a protest for its non-payment on the day it became due, in which the notary had certified that he dc,posited in the post office at Mobile on the same day. notices of the protest for the drawers and endorsers, under cover, addressed to D. Hudson, Escp,…
Read the full summary
birr or to the Circuit court of Montgomery. Assumpsit on a bill of exchange, tried by Crenshaw, J. At the trial of this cause, the plaintiffs to the action gave in evidence the bill of exchange described in the declaration, and a protest for its non-payment on the day it became due, in which the notary had certified that he dc,posited in the post office at Mobile on the same day. notices of the protest for the drawers and endorsers, under cover, addressed to D. Hudson, Escp, Assistant' Cashier Columbus, Georgia. They then offered in. evidence a certificate, which was in the following terms: “…
1Opinion of the Court
GOLDTHWAITE, J
— By the rules of the common law, the fact of notice, when requisite to charge the drawer or endorser of an inland bill of exchange, was necessary to be proved by witnesses in the same way as any other fact given in evidence, and could not be established by *261the certificate of a notary. The act of eighteen hundred and twenty-eight, section one, (Aik. Dig. 327,) enacts, that “the protest of a notary public, which shall set forth a demand, refusal, non-acceptance or non-payment of any inland hill of exchange, or other protestable security, for money or other thing, and that legal…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Saltmarsh v. TuthillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Molyneaux v. CollierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1853
- Boggs' Adm'rs v. Br. Bank at MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847