Whatley v. Muscogee Bank
72 So. 1018, 197 Ala. 402, 1916 Ala. LEXIS 87
Opinion
The complaint does not allege that the note sued upon contained negotiable words, that is, was made payable to. “order” or “bearer,” and, for aught there appearing it was nonnegotiable. — Code, §§ 4958, 4665, 4966; 7 Cyc. 606. To avoid the defenses stated in the several special pleas, it was necessary that the replications should show the negotiability of the note. — 14 Ene. PI. & Pr. 518, 525. The fifth ground of demurrer to the special replications should have been sustained.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Whatley v. Muscogee Bank, 72 So. 1018, 197 Ala. 402, 1916 Ala. LEXIS 87 (Ala. 1916).
72 So. 1018 (Whatley v. Muscogee Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Foley v. Hardy
253 P. 238 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1927)
Simpson v. E. C. Payne Lumber Co.
82 So. 649 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)
Quarles v. Kendrick Mercantile Co.
79 So. 160 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)