Richardson v. Fields

• Decision Date: 23 December 1899
• Citation: 26 So. 981,124 Ala. 535
• Parties: RICHARDSON ET AL. v. FIELDS ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

26 So. 981

124 Ala. 535

RICHARDSON ET AL. v. FIELDS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 23, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Blount county; J. A. Bilbro, Judge.

Action by Richardson Bros. & Co. against A. E. Fields and others. Plaintiffs claimed as transferees of a promissory note which was executed by the defendants to one J. A. B. Lovett. The defendants pleaded the general issue and the want of consideration. It was shown that the note sued on was given in settlement of a balance due said Lovett on his salary for services rendered by him to the Blount College Company, and that it was at his instance the note was signed by the defendants, who were, at the time of the signature, members of the board of trustees of said college. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court gave the general affirmative charge in favor of the defendants. There were verdict and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal, and assign as error, among other rulings, the giving of the general affirmative charge in favor of the defendants. Affirmed.

Emery C. Hall, for appellants.

R. T. Robinett, for appellees.

DOWDELL, J.

Among other pleas filed by the defendants in this case was the plea of a want of consideration. The evidence, without conflict, shows that the note, the foundation of this suit, was given for an antecedent debt of the Blount College Company, a body corporate, to the payee, J. A. B. Lovett, for services which had been rendered by said Lovett as a teacher for said company. There was no new consideration moving to the defendants, the makers of this note. The mere promise, as in this case, of the defendant to pay the debt of another, on no other consideration than the debt, is a nudum pactum, no matter what form the promise may assume. Watson v. Reynolds, 54 Ala. 191; Beall v. Ridgeway, 18 Ala. 117; Rutledge's Adm'r v. Townsend, 38 Ala. 712; Hester v. Wesson, 6 Ala. 115; Underwood v. Lovelace, 61 Ala. 155; Thornton v. Guice, 73 Ala. 322; Doss v. Peterson. 82 Ala. 253, 2 So. 644; Russell v. Wright, 98 Ala. 652, 13 So. 594. This view of the case renders it unnecessary to consider other assignments of error based upon other pleadings in the cause. The evidence being without conflict as to a want of consideration of the note, under this phase of the defense the affirmative charge requested by the defendants was properly given. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.