Sample v. Tennessee Valley Bank

76 So. 936, 200 Ala. 578, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 550
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1917
Docket8 Div. 59.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 76 So. 936 (Sample v. Tennessee Valley Bank) 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
Sample v. Tennessee Valley Bank, 76 So. 936, 200 Ala. 578, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 550 (Ala. 1917).

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

[1] A declaration on a promissory note by a transferee is sufficient if it simply avers that the note is the property of the plaintiff. Clark v. Moses, 50 Ala. 326; Morris v. Poillon, 50 Ala. 403; *579 8 Cyc., 123(b). The complaint was not subject to the demurrer.

[2-4] The defendant’s pleas of failure of consideration and fraud in the procurement of the note were fully supported by the evidence, and the burden devolved upon plaintiff to establish its replication that it was a bona fide purchaser for value in due course. This it did by evidence which was undisputed, and from which no adverse inference could have been drawn, and hence the general charge for plaintiff was properly given.' Had plaintiff’s witness, who bought the note, been allowed to answer that along with it he bought a lot of other similar notes, the amount of which was unusual in plaintiff’s business, it would not have affected the result; for that fact would not have ■ supported an inference of bad faith in purchasing the note. And nothing short of bad faith would have destroyed plaintiff’s standing as a bona fide purchaser. 7 Oye. 944 (B).

[5] The special rejoinders to which demurrers were sustained were no more than pleas of the general issue; and the matter set up therein, so far as it was relevant, was available under the general issue. There could have been no prejudicial error in their elimination.

[6] Under Code, § 3967, defendant could not question plaintiff’s ownership of the note sued on, in the absence of a sworn plea of denial. There was no such plea on file, and the refusal of the trial court to allow its filing at the close of the evidence was within its discretion, and is not revisable on appeal. Craig & Co. v. Pierson Lbr. Co., 179 Ala. 535, 60 South. 838.

[7] The motion to exclude from the evidence the note sued on was without merit,' but it came too late in the absence of any objection to the note when it was first introduced.

We find :qo error in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and MAYFIELD and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tennessee Valley Bank v. Williams
14 So. 2d 368 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1943)
Braswell v. Fleming
140 So. 389 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Futvoye v. Chuites
140 So. 432 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Crisp v. First Nat. Bank of Birmingham
139 So. 213 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Stevens v. Taylor
130 So. 386 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1930)
Chitwood v. Blackwood
124 So. 110 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Spires v. Jones
101 So. 753 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Clayton v. Bank of East Chattanooga
85 So. 271 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
White v. Central Nat. Bank
78 So. 74 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 So. 936, 200 Ala. 578, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sample-v-tennessee-valley-bank-ala-1917.