Hanrick v. Farmers' Bank of Chattahoochie
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit court of Montgomery. Assumpsit on note, tried by A. Martin, X This action was founded on a bill of exchange, dated March twelfth, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, drawn by Whitman & Hubbard on, and accepted by defendant below, for ten thousand dollars, payable sixty days after date, to the order of Thomas W. Brame — made negotiable and payable at the Bank of Moble — and endorsed by Thomas W. Brame, William S. Brame, and Walsh & Fitzpatrick — and…
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit court of Montgomery. Assumpsit on note, tried by A. Martin, X This action was founded on a bill of exchange, dated March twelfth, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, drawn by Whitman & Hubbard on, and accepted by defendant below, for ten thousand dollars, payable sixty days after date, to the order of Thomas W. Brame — made negotiable and payable at the Bank of Moble — and endorsed by Thomas W. Brame, William S. Brame, and Walsh & Fitzpatrick — and protested for non-payment. The general issue was plead by defendant below, but withdrawn, and judgment rendered for plaintiffs.
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
— This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the defendant in error, as the endorsee of a bill of exchange, against the plaintiff in error, as the acceptor of the said bill.
The declaration contains a special count on the bill, and the common money counts, for money had and received, and money paid, laid out and expended. The record further shows this entry of the judgment:
“ This day came the parties, by their attornies, and the defendant withdrawing his plea, says nothing in bar or preclusion of the plaintiff’s action. It is therefore considered by the court, that the plaintiff recover of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Trammell v. Hudmon & BrotherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- Manning v. KohnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1870