First Nat. Bank v. Slaughter

• Decision Date: 27 April 1893
• Citation: 14 So. 545,98 Ala. 602
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF MONTGOMERY v. SLAUGHTER ET AL. [1]
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

14 So. 545

98 Ala. 602

FIRST NAT. BANK OF MONTGOMERY v. SLAUGHTER ET AL. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 27, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Crenshaw county; John P. Hubbard, Judge.

Action by the First National Bank of Montgomery against N.M Slaughter and others on a promissory note. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

This action was founded upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: "$245.00. Patsburg, Ala., July 15th, 1889. On or before the 1st day of October, 1889, for value received, the undersigned, of the county of Crenshaw state of Ala., jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Montgomery Iron Works two hundred and forty-five dollars, payable at 1st National Bank of Montgomery, with interest until paid, and reasonable attorney's fees, if collected by law; and we hereby waive presentment for payment, and notice of protest for nonpayment, of the same and also waive all homestead and exemption laws as to this debt. It is also further understood and agreed that the title to the De Loach wheel and Pratt gin, for which the note is given in payment, shall remain in said Montgomery Iron Works until this note, and all interest thereon accrued, is paid in full. N.M. Slaughter. J. L. Slaugther. D. L. Slaughter. Post-office address: N.M. & J. L. Slaughter, Patsburg Ala." The note was properly indorsed by the secretary and treasurer of the Montgomery Iron Works, and it was shown that the said note was transferred to the plaintiff in due course of trade, before maturity, for a valuable consideration. There were several rulings of the circuit court upon the evidence sought to be introduced, to which exceptions were reserved by the plaintiff. These rulings of the lower court were based upon the idea-and the court so held-that the note sued on was not commercial paper, and that, therefore, certain evidence which was sought to be introduced, going to show a failure of consideration as to said note, and other defenses thereto, was properly allowed. Under the opinion in this case, it is not deemed necessary to set out these rulings in detail, nor is it thought necessary to set out all of the charges which were asked by the plaintiff in writing, and refused by the court. Among the number, however, was the following: "The court charges the jury that if they believe the evidence they must find for the plaintiff." The court refused to give this charge, and the plaintiff duly excepted to its refusal. There was judgment for the defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

M. W. Rushton, for appellant.

I. H. Parks, for appellees.

COLEMAN J.

The instrument sued on possesses all...