Talmage & Co. v. Millikin & Meigs
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. J. W. Foster. This was an action brought by the appellants, Henry Talmage & Company, against the appellees, W. W. Milliken and S. K. Meigs, “partners doing business as Milliken & Meigs.” The defendant Meigs interposed a special plea of non est factum, denying the execution of the bonds sued on. The defendants jointly filed pleas denying the consideration for the bonds sued on.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. J. W. Foster. This was an action brought by the appellants, Henry Talmage & Company, against the appellees, W. W. Milliken and S. K. Meigs, “partners doing business as Milliken & Meigs.” The defendant Meigs interposed a special plea of non est factum, denying the execution of the bonds sued on. The defendants jointly filed pleas denying the consideration for the bonds sued on. The plaintiffs filed replications to the joint pleas, averring that the bonds sued on were executed by the appellees at the request of one Burbage, as an accommodation…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCLELLAN, J.
Milliken, át the request of Burbage, for his acommodation and to enable Min to raise money on the paper by indorsing and delivering it to some third party, signed a bond and delivered it to Burbage. The latter, in consonance with Milliken’s intention, indorsed, transferred and delivered the bond to Talmage & Co. for a valuable consideration passing at the time to him, Burbage. Talmage & Co. bring this suit, against Milliken on that bond. Milliken defends on t’he ground that there was no consideration for the obligation as between Mm and Burbage, and insists that he being the payor and Burbage…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Miller v. StuartUtah Supreme Court · 1927
- Lewis v. Isbell National BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916