Hauerwas v. Goodloe

• Decision Date: 15 June 1893
• Citation: 101 Ala. 162,13 So. 567
• Parties: HAUERWAS ET AL. v. GOODLOE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

13 So. 567

101 Ala. 162

HAUERWAS ET AL. v. GOODLOE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 15, 1893

Appeal from district court, Lauderdale county; W. P. Chitwood Judge.

Action by J. C. Goodloe, as receiver of the Florence National Bank against J. A. H. Hauerwas, Louis Levin, and Osworth Breuss on a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff defendants appeal. Reversed.

Defendants pleaded as a defense that the note sued on was made on Sunday, on which plea plaintiff joined issue. The plaintiff introduced the note in evidence, and, in connection therewith, a book regularly used by the bank in its business and known as the "discount register," in which the number, name of maker, date, amount, and maturity of all the notes discounted by the bank were entered. This book showed that the note in suit was a renewal of the note which matured on March 15, 1891, (Sunday,) and was renewed on March 27 1891. S.D. Tice was introduced as a witness, who testified that he was in the employ of the bank at the time the note was renewed; that the book was correctly kept; and that it was the custom of the bank in renewing notes, if the renewal was not made on the same day the old note matured, to date the new note back to the date of the maturity of the old note. The defendants objected to the introduction in evidence of the discount register, on the ground that it failed to show any connection between the note in suit and said book. The court overruled this objection, and the defendants excepted. It was further proved that the body of the note was in the handwriting of Mr. Tice, who was the cashier of the plaintiff, and that on March 15, 1891, said Tice was not in the employ of the bank, and did not come to the bank until the 19th of March, and that the note in suit was not made until March 27, 1891. The defendants introduced no testimony, and, after the introduction of all the testimony of the plaintiff, they asked the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (1) "If the jury believe the evidence, they must find for the defendants." (2) "If the jury believe that the note sued on was made on Sunday, then they must find for the defendants." (3) "If the plaintiff has failed to prove to you that the note in suit was not delivered on the day it bears date, then your verdict must be for the defendants." (4) "Unless you believe from the testimony that the note in...