Ware, Murphy & Co. v. Russell
Supreme Court of Alabama
APPEAL from Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before Hon. George H. Craig. The opinion states the facts. There is no dispute that the defendant owes the amount due on the note, after allowing credit for the amount paid before notice of transfer. The question, then, is, who is the beneficial owner of the note ? It is clear neither Callen nor Morey, Watson & Dunlap, can claim any interest in the note — all they had, passed by their endorsement.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before Hon. George H. Craig. The opinion states the facts. There is no dispute that the defendant owes the amount due on the note, after allowing credit for the amount paid before notice of transfer. The question, then, is, who is the beneficial owner of the note ? It is clear neither Callen nor Morey, Watson & Dunlap, can claim any interest in the note — all they had, passed by their endorsement. Mrs. Holbrook has never' asserted any claim to it. She took the note and mortgage after maturity, and subject to all defenses.’ The transfer of the note of…
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
The following facts seem not to be disputed: that Callen, on April 3, 1872, gave his commercial note, due October 15,1872, payable to Morey, Watson & Dunlap, and cotemporaneously executed a mortgage on real estate to secure its payment; and that, on the next day, Callen transferred to Morey, Watson & Dunlap a non-commercial note for a smaller amount, which he held on appellee, Russell, due January 1, 1873, as collateral security for the debt evidenced by the note first above described; that the note and mortgage of Callen were transferred in December, 1872, when they were past due, to Mrs.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cocke v. ChaneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jones v. MooreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- Aderhold v. Blumenthal & BeckertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1891
- Gilliam v. DavisWashington Supreme Court · 1893
- Haden & Floyd v. Lehman, Durr & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Milliken-Helm Commission Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912