Heflin Gold-Min. Co. v. Hilton

• Decision Date: 23 November 1899
• Citation: 27 So. 301,124 Ala. 365
• Parties: HEFLIN GOLD-MIN. CO. v. HILTON. [1]
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

27 So. 301

124 Ala. 365

HEFLIN GOLD-MIN. CO. v. HILTON. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 23, 1899

Appeal from Cleburne county court; T. J. Burton, Judge.

Action by John F. Hilton against the Heflin Gold-Mining Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

This action was brought by the appellee, John F. Hilton, against the Heflin Gold-Mining Company, and was commenced by attachment. The complaint is in the form prescribed by the Code for a suit on a promissory note, and the instrument is described in the complaint as a promissory note. A motion was made by the defendant to dissolve the attachment on the ground that the instrument sued on was not a promissory note or such an obligation of the defendant as could be enforced in a court of law. This motion was overruled, to which ruling the defendant duly excepted. Pleas were then filed presenting substantially the same issues. The plaintiff demurred to said pleas, which demurrers were sustained, and the defendant duly excepted. Upon the trial of the cause the plaintiff offered in evidence the instrument sued on, which was in words and figures as follows: "On or before the 15th day of October, 1896, the Heflin Gold-Mining Company promises to pay to the order of John F. Hilton fifteen hundred dollars, with interest from date, at 6 per cent. per annum, for value received. But this note is in no way chargeable against the $238,889.00 stock interest in said company owned and held by W. G. Milligan, W. A. Neal, and D W. Vaughan, or their respective wives, and the $35,000.00 stock interest in said company owned and held by said Vaughan, Neal, Milligan, and John F. Hilton, and is only an obligation of said company affecting the stock interest of the other holder of stock in said company. This 8th of April 1896. [Signed] The Heflin Gold-Mining Company, by T. W. McConnell, President. Attest: L. M. Thomas, Secty. & Treas." The defendant objected to the introduction of this instrument in evidence upon the ground that it was not the instrument counted upon in the complaint, and that it was not a promissory note, and not such an instrument as could be enforced in a court of law. The court overruled this objection, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. It is not deemed necessary, under the opinion on the present appeal, to set out the other facts of the case in detail. There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved.

Merrell & Bridges and Caldwell & Johnston, for appellant.

D. D. McLeod and Blackwell & Keith, for appellee.

SHARPE J.

It is one of the essentials of a...