First Nat. Bank of Montgomery v. Slaughter

98 Ala. 602
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 98 Ala. 602 (First Nat. Bank of Montgomery v. Slaughter) 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
First Nat. Bank of Montgomery v. Slaughter, 98 Ala. 602 (Ala. 1893).

Opinion

COLEMAN, J.

The instrument sued on possesses all the requisites of commercial paper. It is made payable absolutely at a designated bank, for a sum certain, and at a defi.nite time. The fact that it contains a provision for the payment of attorney’s fees, a waiver of exémptions, or the retention of the legal title to the property for which it was grwen as security for the payment of the debt, does not impede its circulation or impair its validity as negotiable paper. Montgomery v. Crossthwaite, 90 Ala. 553; McGhee v. Imp. & [604]*604Tra. Bank, 93 Ala. 192. The Circuit Court was in error in holding that the paper, the foundation of the suit, was not commercial paper.

There are other exceptions reserved, a consideration of which would lead to a reversal of the case on other grounds; but we are of opinion, that all such questions will be eliminated from the case on another trial. The holder of such paper, received in due course of trade before maturity, for a valuable consideration, without notice, is Dot affected by any defense or equities which might be available to the maker against the payee; and by the express provision of the statute of this State, “paper governed by the commercial law, negotiated before maturity, is not subject to set-off or re-coupment.” — Code of 1886, § 2684.

The evidence shows that plaintiff became the owner, in due course of trade for value, before maturity. There is no proof of notice to the plaintiff, nor of facts calculated to put him upon notice, of any defense to the note. Under such circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.—Ross v. Drinkard, 35 Ala. 441; Johnson v. Hanover Bank, 88 Ala. 274-5; Barton v. Barton, 75 Ala. 400.

Beversed and remanded.

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

Related

Nall v. Bland Lumber Co.
49 So. 2d 228 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1950)
First Nat. Bank v. Dupuy-Burke Realty Co.
159 So. 231 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Perry National Bank v. Engnell
198 Iowa 26 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1924)
Sandlin v. Maury Nat. Bank
98 So. 190 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Leggett
116 S.E. 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Citizens Nat. Bank v. Buckheit
71 So. 82 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
Ex parte Bledsoe
61 So. 813 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)
Bledsoe v. City National Bank of Selma
60 So. 942 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Fleming v. Sherwood
139 N.W. 101 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1912)
Holloway v. Darden
53 So. 187 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Gilpin v. People's Bank
90 N.E. 91 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1909)
Dumas v. Peoples' Bank
40 So. 964 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Slaughter v. First National Bank
109 Ala. 157 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 Ala. 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-nat-bank-of-montgomery-v-slaughter-ala-1893.