Bromberg v. Self

Decision Date12 November 1918
Docket Number1 Div. 275
Citation80 So. 631,16 Ala.App. 627
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Claud A. Grayson, Judge.

Action by Albert E. Self against Frederick G. Bromberg, as an indorser on a note. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

V.F. Kilborn and Frederick G. Bromberg, both of Mobile, for appellant.

Armbrecht McMillan & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellee.


The plaintiff was the owner and holder of three promissory notes aggregating $1,250, executed by E.O. Zadek Jewelry Company, a corporation, of which corporation defendant was vice president. One of these notes was due December 20, 1915, one January 20, and one February 20, 1916. After the December note became due and before the maturity of the others, the plaintiff demanded payment of the note then past due, but payment was not made, and at the solicitation of the company the debt was extended, as evidenced by two promissory notes, one for $600, payable in 6 months, and one for $650, payable in 12 months from date, with interest at 6 per cent. Both of said notes provided for attorney's fees and expenses of collection, and both of these notes were indorsed by the defendant.

Before any controversy arose between the parties to this suit relative to the liability of the indorser on the notes, the Zadek Company became a voluntary bankrupt under the General Bankrupt Act of the United States (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544 [U.S.Comp.St. §§ 9585-9656]), and, after complying with the law and acting in conformity with it, proposed a compromise with its creditors, offering a 30 per cent. dividend in full settlement of its obligations. The plaintiff did not prove his claim in the bankrupt court, relying upon the indorser, until he had been urged and induced so to do by the defendant in various letters which are in evidence, and in these letters, the defendant recognized said indorsements, and urged that the filing and acceptance of the dividend would not release the defendant as an indorser, the letters passing between the parties and their attorneys showing conclusively that the notes were proven in the bankrupt court for the benefit of the defendant in this suit, so that this defendant could have the benefit of the dividend paid on the compromise in the bankrupt court. The plaintiff did receive the 30 per cent. dividend, and applied the same on the notes, and demand was then made on this defendant for payment of the balance.

In various letters, after the Zadek Company had gone into bankruptcy, and while the defendant was trying to induce plaintiff to make proof of his claim, the defendant recognized his obligations as an indorser and his desire to get credit for the 30 per cent. dividend for his own protection. In one of his letters, the defendant wrote:

"I recognize the indorsement which I made, and of course there can be no evasion of it. I want Mr. Self to file his claim so that he might get the 30 per cent. dividend to reduce the amount of my responsibility."

Besides this, there was abundant evidence to support the contention that there was no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Myers v. International Trust Co, 122
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1927
    ...Mfg. Co. v. Caminez, 146 App. Div. 436, 438, 131 N. Y. S. 157, Silverman v. Rubenstein (Sup.) 162 N. Y. S. 733, 735, Bromberg v. Self, 16 Ala. App. 627, 628, 80 So. 631, and Guild v. Butler, 122 Mass. 498, 500, 23 Am. Rep. Nor do we think that the effect of the composition of the partnershi......
  • Gavin v. Hinrichs
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 21, 1979
    ...not been specifically addressed by the Alabama Supreme Court since the enactment of the UCC. In brief appellee cites Bromberg v. Self, 16 Ala.App. 627, 80 So. 631 (1918) and Culbreath v. Guiterman Rosenfield & Co., 217 Ala. 259, 115 So. 303 (1927) for the proposition that in "an action to r......
  • Upton v. Heiselt Const. Co
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • July 13, 1949
    ...246; Corn Exchange National Bank v. Taubel, 113 N.J.L. 605, 175 A. 55; Silverman v. Rubenstein, Sup., 162 N.Y.S. 733; Bromberg v. Self, 16 Ala.App. 627, 80 So. 631; Highleyman v. McDowell Motor Car Co., 202 221, 216 S.W. 52; Petri v. Manny, 99 Wash. 601, 170 P. 127, 1 A.L.R. 1595; Howard v.......
  • Central Nat. Bank of Cleveland v. Mills
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 1939
    ... ... 254 et seq., 60 N.E. 295, on page 298, 82 Am.St.Rep. 745, ... from which we quote the following, ...          'It ... seems self-evident that the rights of the creditor, [62 Ohio ... App. 425] through subrogation to the remedies of the ... sureties, can, in no case, exceed ... v. City of New Bewford, ... 239 Mass. 216, 131 N.E. 444; In re American Paper Co., ... D.C., 255 F. 121; Bromberg ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT