Doyle v. First Nat. Bank
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | DOWDELL, J. |
| Citation | 131 Ala. 294,30 So. 880 |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1901 |
| Parties | DOYLE v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BIRMINGHAM. |
30 So. 880
131 Ala. 294
DOYLE
v.
FIRST NAT. BANK OF BIRMINGHAM.
Supreme Court of Alabama
November 26, 1901
Appeal from city court of Birmingham; Chas. A. Senn, Judge.
Action by Mark Doyle against the First National Bank of Birmingham. Judgment directed for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Powell & Blackburn, for appellant.
E. J. Smyer, for appellee.
DOWDELL, J.
The plaintiff brought his action to recover damages from the defendant bank for an alleged wrongful protest by said bank of a note made and executed by plaintiff. The note in question reads as follows: "52.50. Birmingham, Ala., Nov. 11, 1899. Six months fixed after date I promise to pay to the order of Mrs. E. L. Watts fifty-two & 50/100 dollars. Value received, with interest from maturity until paid. Payable at the First National Bank of Birmingham, Ala. The makers and indorsers of this note hereby expressly waive all right to claim exemption allowed by the constitution and laws of this or any other state, and agree to pay cost of collecting this note, including reasonable attorney's fees, for all services rendered in any way, in any suit against any maker or indorser, or in collecting or in attempting to collect, or in securing or in attempting to secure, this debt, if this note is not paid at maturity. Notice and protest on the nonpayment of this note is hereby waived for each maker and indorser. [Signed] Mark Doyle." The indorsements on the note were as follows: "E. L. Watts," and, "Pay to First National Bank or order," signed "Industrial Ins. Co. Sam. T. Hurst, Jr., Cashier." The note was protested for nonpayment on May 11, 1900. It is conceded that by the terms of the note "six months fixed after date" precluded the idea of days of grace, and it is not contended by appellant that he was entitled to the three days of grace, nor is it contended that the provision contained in the note waiving notice and protest took away from the holder the right to have the same protested for nonpayment on the day of its maturity. Bellinger v. Glenn, 80 Ala. 190, 60 Am. Rep. 980; White v. Keith, 97 Ala. 668, 12 So. 611. The vital question in this case is as to whether or not the note was protested before its maturity, the contention of the appellant being that the note did not mature until the 12th day of May, whereas it was protested on the 11th day, and the contention of appellee being that the note matured on the 11th, the day of its protest for nonpayment. By the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. O'Neal, 4 Div. 844
...shorter, lacks such day, in which case the paper will become due on the last day of the month." In Doyle v. First National Bank, 131 Ala. 294, 30 So. 880, 90 Am.St.Rep. 41, this court held that a note which is executed on " 'November 11, 1899,' and is made payable 'six months fixe......
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Reed, 7 Div. 240.
...unless it appears in the context to have been intended otherwise. Bartol v. Calvert, 21 Ala. 42, 46; Doyle v. First National Bank, 131 Ala. 294, 30 So. 880, 90 Am. St. Rep. 41; Oberhaus v. State ex rel. McNamara, 173 Ala. 483, 55 So. 898; Sheets v. Seldon, 2 Wall. 177, 17 L.Ed. 823; Guarant......
-
Oberhaus v. State
...28 A. & E. Ency. Law, 215. This is especially true in commercial transactions. Bradley v. Northern Bank, 60 Ala. 252; Doyle v. Bank, 131 Ala. 294, 30 So. 880, 90 Am. St. Rep. 41. The general rule undoubtedly grew out of the disposition of courts to avoid forfeitures against those who mu......
-
Daniel v. Ormand, 6 Div. 572
...1933, falling on Sunday. Code 1928, § 13. We hold the appeal was taken within the time prescribed by law. Doyle v. First National Bank, 131 Ala. 294, 30 So. 880, 90 Am.St.Rep. 41. The appeal is on the record proper, without bill of exceptions. The general affirmative charge was given at app......
-
Clark v. O'Neal, 4 Div. 844
...shorter, lacks such day, in which case the paper will become due on the last day of the month." In Doyle v. First National Bank, 131 Ala. 294, 30 So. 880, 90 Am.St.Rep. 41, this court held that a note which is executed on " 'November 11, 1899,' and is made payable 'six months fixe......
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Reed, 7 Div. 240.
...unless it appears in the context to have been intended otherwise. Bartol v. Calvert, 21 Ala. 42, 46; Doyle v. First National Bank, 131 Ala. 294, 30 So. 880, 90 Am. St. Rep. 41; Oberhaus v. State ex rel. McNamara, 173 Ala. 483, 55 So. 898; Sheets v. Seldon, 2 Wall. 177, 17 L.Ed. 823; Guarant......
-
Oberhaus v. State
...28 A. & E. Ency. Law, 215. This is especially true in commercial transactions. Bradley v. Northern Bank, 60 Ala. 252; Doyle v. Bank, 131 Ala. 294, 30 So. 880, 90 Am. St. Rep. 41. The general rule undoubtedly grew out of the disposition of courts to avoid forfeitures against those who mu......
-
Daniel v. Ormand, 6 Div. 572
...1933, falling on Sunday. Code 1928, § 13. We hold the appeal was taken within the time prescribed by law. Doyle v. First National Bank, 131 Ala. 294, 30 So. 880, 90 Am.St.Rep. 41. The appeal is on the record proper, without bill of exceptions. The general affirmative charge was given at app......