Waters v. Carleton

4 Port. 205
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided June 15, 1836·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

HITCHCOCK, C. J.

— This was an action of as-sumpsit, founded upon an instrument in writing, of which the following is a copy—

Messrs. Goldthwaile and Campbell :

“ Pay to J. SC. T. Walker, two hundred and thirty-eight dollars and forty-eight cents, out of any monies you may collect in the case, in which Hiram Cheeseborough is plaintiff and James Pritchard is defendant, and this shall be your receipt for the same.

“ (Signed) P. WATERS.

“January 17, 1833.”

The declaration avers the acceptance of the order, iby Goldthwaite and Campbell, according to its terms; its transfer by delivery to the plaintiff; the ¡return of nulla bona, against Pritchard, and notice to the defendant: to which there was a general demurrer, which was overruled, and judgment final for the plaintiff, the défendant having failed to plead over.

The question is, whether this is such an instrument, as is the foundation of an action. It is evident •'that it is not a bill of exchange, which is an order for the payment of money absolutely. By the terms of this instrument, the payment is to depend upon a contingency, which may never happen. The sufficiency of the fund in this case, having failed, the order has become invalid

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

Waters v. Carleton, 4 Port. 205 (Ala. 1836).

4 Port. 205 (Waters v. Carleton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burden v. Feore
460 So. 2d 861 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1984)
People's Bank v. Moore
78 So. 789 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)