Martin v. Dortch
Supreme Court of Alabama
This was an action of debt against Martin as administrator of Heslip, in the Circuit Court of Franklin county, on an instrument which on oyer, is set out as follows: “$1583 33§ On or before the twenty-fifth day of December next," for value received, I promise to pay Isaac Dortch the sum of one thousand five hundred and eighty-three dollars thirty-three and onfe third cents, if-being for bacon purchased from said Dortch.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt against Martin as administrator of Heslip, in the Circuit Court of Franklin county, on an instrument which on oyer, is set out as follows: “$1583 33§ On or before the twenty-fifth day of December next," for value received, I promise to pay Isaac Dortch the sum of one thousand five hundred and eighty-three dollars thirty-three and onfe third cents, if-being for bacon purchased from said Dortch. Witness, my hand and seal, this thirteenth day of March, 18 9. DANIEL HUFF, [Sen!.} For Joseph Heslip, Thomas Ramsey, Jenkin Whiteside„ Test, J. E. SuMers.” The declaration…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE SAFFOLD
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The judgement of the Court in sustaining the demurrer is one of the causes assigned for error. In the discussion of this assignment, the questions were presented whether the defendant below, by specialplea^ could deny the due execution of the instrument, or the authority of *481tbe attorney in fact to represent him therein, or could it only be done in tbe common form of the plea of non est factum; and in either event can the defendant as the personal representative of,the contracting party, avail himself of such defence, without making affidavit…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Mahone v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1863
- Sulzby v. PalmerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Shuetze v. BaileySupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Caldwell v. BaxterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- Sulzby v. PalmerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.