National Fertilizer Co. v. Thomason

Supreme Court of Alabama

National Fertilizer Co. v. Thomason

109 Ala. 173

DecidedNovember 15, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 109 Ala. 173 (National Fertilizer Co. v. Thomason) 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

National Fertilizer Co. v. Thomason, 109 Ala. 173 (Ala. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

We are of opinion that the receipt executed by the Farmers’ Alliance Exchange, per W. P. Stott, on November 7, 1891, to the defendants, for the amount of a partial payment on account of the bond sued on, showing as it did, that the money so received by the Exchange was “for National Fertilizer Co.,” should have put defendants on inquiry -as to whether said company then owned said bond. Mobile & Montgomery Ry. Co. v. Felrath, 67 Ala. 189. This inquiry, if properly prosecuted, would have developed the fact that the National Fertilizer Company, and not the Exchange, was the owner of the note; and it follows that defendants’ subsequent payments to the latter stand upon the same footing as if they had actually known that the bond belonged to the former,and were made at their peril. If such payments reached the hands of the holder of the paper,defendants were entitled to credits therefor ; otherwise not. The charges requested by plaintiff should, therefore, have been given.

Reversed and remanded.

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

McCLELLAN, J.

We are of opinion that the receipt executed by the Farmers’ Alliance Exchange, per W. P. Stott, on November 7, 1891, to the defendants, for the amount of a partial payment on account of the bond sued on, showing as it did, that the money so received by the Exchange was “for National Fertilizer Co.,” should have put defendants on inquiry -as to whether said company then owned said bond. Mobile & Montgomery Ry. Co. v. Felrath, 67 Ala. 189. This inquiry, if properly prosecuted, would have developed the fact that the National Fertilizer Company, and not the Exchange, was the owner of the note; and it follows that defendants’ subsequent payments to the latter stand upon the same footing as if they had actually known that the bond belonged to the former,and were made at their peril. If such payments reached the hands of the holder of the paper,defendants were entitled to credits therefor ; otherwise not. The charges requested by plaintiff should, therefore, have been given.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 Ala. 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-fertilizer-co-v-thomason-ala-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack