Carroll v. Meeks

3 Port. 226
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1836
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 3 Port. 226 (Carroll v. Meeks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carroll v. Meeks, 3 Port. 226 (Ala. 1836).

Opinion

Hopkins, J.

In this case an action of debt was. brought by the defendant against the plaintiff in er[228]*228ror, upon a promissory note, which the declaration avers was made by him, for value received to one Owen or bearer. The right which Meeks showed to the suit, was as bearer of the noté. Two pleas were filed to the action, one of the statute of limitations, and the other was non est factum, to which issues were taken.

Upon the trial of the issues, in the Circuit Court of Wilcox county, the plaintiff in the action produced the note, with an indorsement upon it, made by Owen to one Armstrong; and proved the making of the note by Owen, the payee, and Armstrong the in-dorsee.

To the note, as evidence, and the competency of fhe witnesses, the defendant objected, and to the opinion of the Court, which overruled the objection, he excepted.

To the first assignment of error, which denies the right of the bearer to maintain an action of debt upon the note, we deem it sufficient to say, that the note is an original promise by the maker, to pay any person who shall become the bearer of it. The right, therefore, of the bearer to the action, is the same which he would have had if the word bearer had been omitted, and the note had been made payable to Meeks, instead of Owen. Of his right in the latter case, there could be, we think, no doubt.

The next assignment, questions the sufficiency of the judgment, because it isin assumpsit. The judgment, though informal, was for the precise amount of the principal and interest due upon the note, and bound the plaintiff in error to pay no more, than an accurate judgment in debt would have done.

[229]*229As the judgment has the same effect that a proper one would have, we could not reverse it, upon the ground, that it is in assumpsit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gregory v. McNealy
12 Fla. 578 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1868)
McElhaney v. Gilleland
30 Ala. 183 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1857)
Riggs v. Price
3 Greene 334 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1851)
Spence v. Thompson
11 Ala. 746 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1847)
Swift v. Fitzhugh
9 Port. 39 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1839)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Port. 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-meeks-ala-1836.