Bell v. Rhea, Conner & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
John S. Rhea, James Conner and James W. Rhea, merchants and copartners heretofore trading under the style of Rhea, Conner & Co. declared in assumpsit in the Circuit Court of Cherokee, against the plaintiffs in error, on a promissory note. A demurrer being filed to the declaration it was overruled, and thereupon, the defendant below pleaded non assumpsit, and the parties went to trial.
Read the full summary
John S. Rhea, James Conner and James W. Rhea, merchants and copartners heretofore trading under the style of Rhea, Conner & Co. declared in assumpsit in the Circuit Court of Cherokee, against the plaintiffs in error, on a promissory note. A demurrer being filed to the declaration it was overruled, and thereupon, the defendant below pleaded non assumpsit, and the parties went to trial. A bill of exceptions was sealed by the presiding Judge, at the instance of the plaintiff in error, from which it appears that “the plaintiffs (below) offered as the only evidence in support of their action, an…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
— It is clear that the note read to the jury was not sufficient evidence to have entitled the defendants in error to a verdict. It was incumbent on them to have shown that they were partners at the time the note was made, composing the firm of Rhea, Conner & Co. This point came directly before this Court, in Hunley v. Willis, Lang & Co. (5 Porter’s Rep. 155.) In that case the action was assumpsit on promissory notes; and among other issues there was one upon the plea of non assumpsit. The notes were read to the jury without objection, and the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Leahy v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Cuthbert v. NewellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Dearing, Sink & Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842