Murphy v. Gee
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Wilcox. Assumpsit by Murphy & Pierson, as the indorsees of a note, made by C. Pritchett, against Gee ' as the indorser. The note is dated 21st April, 1842, for the sum of $750, payable on the 1st March, 1843, to Sterling H. Gee, or order, and by him indorsed to the defendant, and by him to the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Wilcox. Assumpsit by Murphy & Pierson, as the indorsees of a note, made by C. Pritchett, against Gee ' as the indorser. The note is dated 21st April, 1842, for the sum of $750, payable on the 1st March, 1843, to Sterling H. Gee, or order, and by him indorsed to the defendant, and by him to the plaintiffs. The declaration sets- out the note and indorsements in the usual mode; avers that the note was not paid at maturity, and that the plaintiffs commenced suit against the maker, on the 3d of March, 1843, in the Circuit Court of Clarke county; that county…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
In the recent decision of Hagerthy v. Bradford, at this term, Ave held, that Avhenever an indorsee, in his suit against the maker, fails upon the merits of the cause, in obtaining a judgment for the amount of the note, such judgment is prima fade evidence in all cases to charge the indorser, when the suit is commenced with the statutory diligence.
From this decision, we may deduce the rule of pleading proper to suits against the indorser, upon the failure to recover from the maker. The averments of the declaration, in our judgment, should show the suit Avas determined in favor of the maker,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Young v. FullerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856