Florence Discount Co. v. Morris

Alabama Court of Appeals

Florence Discount Co. v. Morris

129 So. 923, 24 Ala. App. 634

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 30, 1930·No. 8 Div. 890.·Published

Opinion

RICE, J.

This was a suit by appellant against appellee for an amount due on a negotiable promissory note.

Appellant was, as we read the record, shown by the undisputed testimony to be a “holder in due course” of the instrument sued on. Code 1923, § 9078. And it was also without dispute that the same was due and unpaid.

We find nothing in the record justifying the refusal of the trial court to give to the jury, at appellant’s request, the general affirmative ’charge, with hypothesis, to find in its favor; and for the error in its refusal the judgment must be and is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

RICE, J.

This was a suit by appellant against appellee for an amount due on a negotiable promissory note.

Appellant was, as we read the record, shown by the undisputed testimony to be a “holder in due course” of the instrument sued on. Code 1923, § 9078. And it was also without dispute that the same was due and unpaid.

We find nothing in the record justifying the refusal of the trial court to give to the jury, at appellant’s request, the general affirmative ’charge, with hypothesis, to find in its favor; and for the error in its refusal the judgment must be and is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Florence Discount Co. v. Morris, 129 So. 923, 24 Ala. App. 634 (Ala. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

129 So. 923 (Florence Discount Co. v. Morris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.