New Farley Nat. Bank v. Montgomery County

• Decision Date: 12 February 1920
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 438
• Citation: 84 So. 815,203 Ala. 654
• Parties: NEW FARLEY NAT. BANK v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

84 So. 815

203 Ala. 654

NEW FARLEY NAT. BANK v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

3 Div. 438

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 12, 1920

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Petition by the County of Montgomery for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and opinion of said court rendered upon the appeal of the New Farley National Bank against the County of Montgomery. Writ granted, judgment reversed, and cause remanded to Court of Appeals.

McClellan J., dissenting.

A.H Arrington and John R. Tyson, both of Montgomery, for petitioner.

Steiner Crum & Well, of Montgomery, opposed.

SAYRE J.

The court is of the opinion that the decision of this court on the former appeal (200 Ala. 170, 75 So. 918) has not controlled the decision of the Court of Appeals as provided by the act approved March 9, 1911 (Laws 1911, p. 100) 1 Ala.App. 1 et seq. On the former appeal the judgment for the defendant bank, rendered on the first trial, was reversed on the ground that the county's release of the bank from the payment of interest, accrued and to accrue on the bonds after May 22, 1909, was not supported by a valuable consideration and the cause was remanded to the trial court in order that the defendant might have an opportunity to make the proof necessary to its defense. We intended, of course, that competent evidence to that effect should be received, if offered, and that the record of the proceedings of the board of revenue, showing the resolution to release interest, would afford no reason why evidence of the consideration, or lack of consideration, moving the board to that resolution should not be received. If such evidence were held to be inadmissible, commissioners' courts and boards of revenue, to thwart the rule of the common law that a consideration is necessary to support a contract, and as well the mandate of the Constitution, section 100, that no obligation of any person, association, or corporation held or owned by any county shall be extinguished except by payment thereof--to evade these rules of law these official agents of the state, its counties or municipalities, would need only to make a record of their resolutions remitting, releasing, or extinguishing obligations without showing the consideration for their action, as was done in this case. The inhibition of the Constitution operates directly upon county and municipal officers, as well as upon the Legislature, and it was never...