Richardson Bros. & Co. v. Fields

124 Ala. 535
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 124 Ala. 535 (Richardson Bros. & Co. v. Fields) 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
Richardson Bros. & Co. v. Fields, 124 Ala. 535 (Ala. 1899).

Opinion

' DOWDELL, J.

— Among other pleas filed by the defendant in- this case- was the plea of a Avant of consideration. The evidence; without conflict, shows that the note, the foundation of this suit, Avas given for an antecedent debt of the Blount College Co., a body corporate, to the payee, J. A. B. Lovett, for services Avhich had [537]*537been rendered by said Lovett as a teacher for said company. 'There was no new consideration moving to the defendants, the makers of this note. The mere promise, as in this case, of the defendants to pay the debt of another, on no other consideration than the debt, is a nutlum pactum, no matter what form the promise may assume. — Watson v. Reynolds, 54 Ala. 191; Beale v. Ridgway 18 Ala. 117; Rutledge v. Townsend, 38 Ala. 712; Hester v. Wesson, 6 Ala. 415; Underwood v. Lovelace, 61 Ala, 155; Thornton v. Guice, 73 Ala. 322; Doss v. Peterson, 82 Ala. 252; Russell v. Wright, 98 Ala. 55. This view of the case renders it unnecessary to consider other assignments of error based upon other pleadings in the cause. The evidence being without conflict as to a Avant of consideration of the note, under this phase of , the defense, the aflirmatiA'e charge requested by the defendants- was properly given. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Related

Skipper v. Wright & Colquett
6 So. 2d 896 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1942)
Collier v. Tatum
160 So. 530 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Soper v. Pointer
67 F.2d 676 (Fifth Circuit, 1933)
Allgood v. First Nat. Bank of Piedmont
139 So. 100 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Hyatt's Supply Co. v. Lyle
133 So. 3 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Cotton v. Courtright
111 So. 7 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
Whitaker v. Hofmayer Dry Goods Co.
99 So. 911 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Howard v. Rhodes
81 So. 362 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Zadek v. Forcheimer
77 So. 941 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Dillworth v. Holmes Furn. & Vehicle Co.
73 So. 288 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
Peabody School Furniture Co. v. Whitman
60 So. 470 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 Ala. 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-bros-co-v-fields-ala-1899.