Commercial Credit Co. v. Ward & Son Auto Co.

Alabama Court of Appeals

Commercial Credit Co. v. Ward & Son Auto Co.

109 So. 576, 21 Ala. App. 515, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 262

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 2, 1926

Docket4 Div. 129.

StatusPublished

This text of 109 So. 576 (Commercial Credit Co. v. Ward & Son Auto Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commercial Credit Co. v. Ward & Son Auto Co., 109 So. 576, 21 Ala. App. 515, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 262 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinions

Was count 1 subject to the demurrer? A qualified indorsement constitutes the indorser a mere assignor of the title of the instrument. It may be made by adding to the indorser's signature the words, "without recourse." Such indorsement does not destroy its negotiability. Code 1923, § 9064.

Every such indorser, hereinabove mentioned, warrants: (1) That the instrument is genuine in all respects that it purports to be. (2) That he has a good title to it. (3) That all prior parties have power to contract. Code 1923, § 9091.

The insistence by appellant is that the maker of the transferred paper was a minor and for that reason incapacitated to make a negotiable note. The text in Randolph Com. Paper, § 265, cited by appellant, seems to be authority for this contention, but the weight of authority is to the effect that bills of exchange and promissory notes given by minors are voidable only and not void, and being personal may or may not be pleaded in a suit on the note. In other words, until repudiated by the infant, such paper is held to be valid. Bell v. Burkhalter, 176 Ala. 62, 57 So. 460; Smoot v. Ryan, 187 Ala. 396,65 So. 828; La Grange, etc., v. Anderson, 63 Ind. 367, 30 Am. Rep. 224; Burke v. Allen, 29 N.H. 106, 61 Am. Dec. 642. In R. C. L. p. 1086, the text states, "In some jurisdictions however, the courts hold that the making of a negotiable instrument by a minor is a void act," but the single case cited in support of the text, i. e. Nat. Granite Bank v. Tyndale,176 Mass. 547, 57 N.E. 1022, 51 L.R.A. 447, refers to the married woman's act and not to minors. In line with the foregoing authorities, the trial court properly sustained demurrers to the first count.

No demurrer was filed to the second count, and therefore we express no opinion as to its sufficiency. As to this count the court gave the general charge for defendant. Under this count and the pleadings under which issue was joined it was incumbent on plaintiff to offer evidence tending to prove that Stanley, the maker of the note had, "refused to pay said note on the ground that at the time of the execution of said note he was a minor."

There was no evidence to sustain this allegation, and therefore the affirmative charge was properly given for defendant.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Was count 1 subject to the demurrer? A qualified indorsement constitutes the indorser a mere assignor of the title of the instrument. It may be made by adding to the indorser's signature the words, "without recourse." Such indorsement does not destroy its negotiability. Code 1923, § 9064.

Every such indorser, hereinabove mentioned, warrants: (1) That the instrument is genuine in all respects that it purports to be. (2) That he has a good title to it. (3) That all prior parties have power to contract. Code 1923, § 9091.

The insistence by appellant is that the maker of the transferred paper was a minor and for that reason incapacitated to make a negotiable note. The text in Randolph Com. Paper, § 265, cited by appellant, seems to be authority for this contention, but the weight of authority is to the effect that bills of exchange and promissory notes given by minors are voidable only and not void, and being personal may or may not be pleaded in a suit on the note. In other words, until repudiated by the infant, such paper is held to be valid. Bell v. Burkhalter, 176 Ala. 62, 57 So. 460; Smoot v. Ryan, 187 Ala. 396,65 So. 828; La Grange, etc., v. Anderson, 63 Ind. 367, 30 Am. Rep. 224; Burke v. Allen, 29 N.H. 106, 61 Am. Dec. 642. In R. C. L. p. 1086, the text states, "In some jurisdictions however, the courts hold that the making of a negotiable instrument by a minor is a void act," but the single case cited in support of the text, i. e. Nat. Granite Bank v. Tyndale,176 Mass. 547, 57 N.E. 1022, 51 L.R.A. 447, refers to the married woman's act and not to minors. In line with the foregoing authorities, the trial court properly sustained demurrers to the first count.

No demurrer was filed to the second count, and therefore we express no opinion as to its sufficiency. As to this count the court gave the general charge for defendant. Under this count and the pleadings under which issue was joined it was incumbent on plaintiff to offer evidence tending to prove that Stanley, the maker of the note had, "refused to pay said note on the ground that at the time of the execution of said note he was a minor."

There was no evidence to sustain this allegation, and therefore the affirmative charge was properly given for defendant.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 576, 21 Ala. App. 515, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-credit-co-v-ward-son-auto-co-alactapp-1926.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack