Turner v. Eldridge
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County Court of Talladega. Debt by the defendant in error, as assignee of a bond, which reads thus: “For value received, ten days after date I promise to pay Jas. W. Camp, for the benefit of Alfred Turner, five hundred dollars. Witness my hand and seal, this 3d day of November, 1840.” H. B. Turner.” The declaration, in the description of the bond, omits to set out. for whose use it was made, but declares upon it a bond payable to Camp.
Read the full summary
Error to the County Court of Talladega. Debt by the defendant in error, as assignee of a bond, which reads thus: “For value received, ten days after date I promise to pay Jas. W. Camp, for the benefit of Alfred Turner, five hundred dollars. Witness my hand and seal, this 3d day of November, 1840.” H. B. Turner.” The declaration, in the description of the bond, omits to set out. for whose use it was made, but declares upon it a bond payable to Camp. The defendant pleaded a special non est factum from the omission to set out the beneficiary in the bonds in the description in the declaration;…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
The counsel for the defendant in error insists, that the proper meaning of the promise to pay “for the benefit of Alfred Turner,” is, that it was to be paid on his account. Such may have been the intention of the parties, but that is not the natural import of the language employed; and having that *823•only for our guide, we must understand it to be a promise for his use. But this does not alter the legal effect of the instrument; it is in law merely a promise to pay James W. Camp; and if was, therefore, not necessary to notice the beneficiary in thp declaration. This disposes of the special non…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Couture v. Ocean Park BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Eldridge v. TurnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847