Erskine v. M'Lendon

Supreme Court of Alabama

Erskine v. M'Lendon

1 Stew. 30

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 15, 1827·Published

Opinion

JUDGE WHITE

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The special endorsement was a special agreement be[31] tween the endorser who made it and bis immediate en-dorsee, and could enure to the benefit of no other person, unless with the privity and consent of the special endorser. So far from this assent being shewn, the inference that it was given, is excluded by the facts in the case. McLen-don took the bill with the special endorsement of Henderson interposing between him and the liability of the first endorser. Erskine by his contract restricted his liability upon the general principles of mercantile law, and there was no privity between him and M‘Lendon. Let the judgement be reversed.

M1Kinley and Hopkins, for plaintiff in error.

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

JUDGE WHITE

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The special endorsement was a special agreement be[31] tween the endorser who made it and bis immediate en-dorsee, and could enure to the benefit of no other person, unless with the privity and consent of the special endorser. So far from this assent being shewn, the inference that it was given, is excluded by the facts in the case. McLen-don took the bill with the special endorsement of Henderson interposing between him and the liability of the first endorser. Erskine by his contract restricted his liability upon the general principles of mercantile law, and there was no privity between him and M‘Lendon. Let the judgement be reversed.

M1Kinley and Hopkins, for plaintiff in error.

Erskine v. M'Lendon, 1 Stew. 30 (Ala. 1827).

Pincite

1 Stew. 30 (Erskine v. M'Lendon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.