Henderson v. Howard, Copeland & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
The defendants in error declared against the plaintiff in the County Court of Talladega, as the second endorser of a bill of exchange. The declaration describes a bill of exchange drawn by John G. Eve, at Talladega, on the 7th January, 1839, for the sum of two thousand six hundred and fifty dollars, on Messrs. O’Neil, Michaux & Thomas, at Mobile, and payable twelve months after date.
Read the full summary
The defendants in error declared against the plaintiff in the County Court of Talladega, as the second endorser of a bill of exchange. The declaration describes a bill of exchange drawn by John G. Eve, at Talladega, on the 7th January, 1839, for the sum of two thousand six hundred and fifty dollars, on Messrs. O’Neil, Michaux & Thomas, at Mobile, and payable twelve months after date. And alledges that the same was presented to the’ drawers in the city of Mobile, on the 2Sth January, 1839, for acceptance; that acceptance was refused; and the bill then and there duly protested for…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
1. The objection to the declaration is not well taken. Where a note is payable on demand, to entitle the holder to an action, no personal demand of the maker is necessary, but the institution of the suit is perfectly regular without it. But in the present case, a right of action accrued immediately upon the protest of the bill for non-acceptance; and the averment of a subsequent promise to 'pay “ on request,” is an inference from the legal liability of the defendant, and cannot, though no request is made, prejudice the right of recovery. This averment, in another point of view, is entirely…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Randolph v. ParishSupreme Court of Alabama · 1839
3Cited by2 opinions
- Eppes v. Mississippi, Gainesville, & Tuskaloosa RailroadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Cleaver v. PattersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848