McKenzie v. Clanton

33 Ala. 528
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 15, 1859·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

RICE, C. J.—

The assignments of error in this case raise two- questions.

The first is, whether the payee and endorser of an inland bill of exchange, duly protested for non-payment, is relieved from the payment of damages, by fhe mere fact that the bill was addressed to, and accepted by him. We decide that in the negative.—Code, § 1537 ; Story on Bills of Exchange, §§ 108-111.

The second is, whether, in a suit on such bill against the endorser, the court can, without the intervention of a jury, render a final judgment by default against him, for the amount of the bill, with the interest and damages due thereon. We decide that in the affirmative, upon the authority of section 2366 of the Code.

Judgment affirmed.

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

McKenzie v. Clanton, 33 Ala. 528 (Ala. 1859).

33 Ala. 528 (McKenzie v. Clanton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Board of Education of Marshall County v. Baugh
199 So. 822 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1941)
Wood & Bros. v. Winship Machine Co.
83 Ala. 424 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)