Carlton v. Fellows, Read & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Sumter. Before the Hon. S. Chapman. This was an action of assumpsit at the suit of the defendants in error against the plaintiff, as the surviving partner of W. Carlton & Co. The declaration alledges that Samuel B. Lacey and Austin Lacey, made a bill single, particularly des» cribed, payable to Henry McCall, which the payee indorsed to Messrs. Carlton & Co., and the latter to the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Sumter. Before the Hon. S. Chapman. This was an action of assumpsit at the suit of the defendants in error against the plaintiff, as the surviving partner of W. Carlton & Co. The declaration alledges that Samuel B. Lacey and Austin Lacey, made a bill single, particularly des» cribed, payable to Henry McCall, which the payee indorsed to Messrs. Carlton & Co., and the latter to the plaintiffs. On the trial before the jury, the plaintiffs proposed to prove that simultaneously with the indorsement to them, it was agreed between the defendant and themselves,…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
In Sommerville v. Stephenson, 3 Stew. Rep. 271, it was held, that the contract evidenced by the general indorsement of a specialty, has a specific legal import, and cannot be varied by parol evidence; that its effect in law is precisely the same, as if it had been expressed in totidem verbis, in the written transfer of the paper. To the same effect are Minor’s Rep. 357; 2 Porter’s Rep. 308; 8 Ala. R. 247; 3 Camp. Rep. 57; 8 Taunt. Rep. 92. These citations are quite sufficient to show that the indorsement could not have been varied in its effect by the verbal agreement simultaneously made ;…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sommerville v. StephensonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1831
3Cited by1 opinion
- Marshall v. CaudlerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852