Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Fourth Nat. Bank

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 4, 1926No. 3 Div. 769PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBouldin, J.

The suit is on a promissory note, brought by Fourth National Bank of Montgomery, the payee, against J. A. Thompson, the maker. The defendant pleaded payment and special plea A as follows;

“That the note here sued on is a negotiable instrument, and that prior to the institution of said suit the plaintiff, who was then and there the holder of said note, intentionally canceled the same.”

This plea presents a defense under the Negotiable Instruments Law (Code, § 9139):

“A negotiable instrument is discharged: * * * (3) By the intentional cancellation thereof by the holder,” subject to the exception…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Tatum v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1915
  2. Cohen v. First National Bank of NogalesArizona Supreme Court · 1921
  3. First National Bank of Detroit v. BurkhamMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  4. City National Bank v. BurnsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
  5. Young & Son v. Lehman, Durr & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1879

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Jehle-Slauson Const. Co. v. Hood-Rich Architects and Consulting EngineersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1983
  2. Tennessee-Hermitage Nat. Bank v. HaganSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  3. Bank of Moulton v. RankinAlabama Court of Appeals · 1930
  4. Fitzgerald v. NelsonOregon Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Foster v. Federal Reserve Bank of PhiladelphiaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1939

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API