Swicegood v. Century Factors, Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 August 1966 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 246 |
| Citation | 189 So.2d 776,280 Ala. 37 |
| Parties | Jesse SWICEGOOD, d/b/a Houston Broadcasters, Radio Station WDIG v. CENTURY FACTORS, INC. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Don P. Bennett, Dothan, for appellant.
H. K. & J. F. Martin, Dothan, for appellee.
Plaintiff below (appellee) sued the defendant (appellant) on a note for $750.00 due August 14, 1963, executed by defendant payable to Musical Concepts, Inc. The note, one of a series made by defendant, had been purchased by the plaintiff from the payee. The second count of the complaint sued on a check drawn by defendant payable to plaintiff in the amount of $395.00 and not paid. This check had been given by defendant in partial payment of a $750.00 note due April 14, 1963, also purchased by plaintiff from Musical Concepts, Inc.
It was stipulated that Musical Concepts, Inc., was a foreign corporation and not qualified to do business in Alabama at the time defendant gave the notes, one of which was sued on.
Plaintiff put in evidence a letter from it to defendant dated June 15, 1962, informing defendant that his notes had been assigned to plaintiff by Musical Concepts and asked that defendant confirm the account. Defendant responded that 'we hereby certify that said notes are valid, that you are a holder in due course thereof, and that there are no offsets of any kind whatsoever to any of said notes'.
Defendant based his defense on Title 10, § 21(89):
'Foreign corporations not qualified to do business in state; contracts or agreements; service on.--All contracts or agreements made or entered into in this state by foreign corporations which have not qualified to do business in this state shall be held to be void at the suit of such foreign corporation or any person claiming through or under such foreign corporation by virtue of said void contract or agreement; but nothing herein shall abrogate the equitable rule that he who seeks equity must do equity. * * *' The case was tried to the court without a jury which after taking the matter under submission and after having been furnished with briefs by both sides rendered judgment for plaintiff on each count.
From this judgment defendant has appealed. Eleven assignments of error are assigned but several are not argued and will not be here considered. The gist of appellant's argument is to the effect that the court erred as a matter of law because (1) the notes are void under the aforementioned statute in that Musical Concepts, Inc. was in fact doing business in Alabama but had not qualified to do so with the Secretary of State; and that (2) a negotiable note issuing out of and resting on a contract expressly declared void by statute cannot be enforced even by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; and (3) the defendant by answering to it does not preclude him from making any defense against the note growing out of the original transaction, unless he also made a new promise to the assignee to pay the note.
If the appellant is wrong in any of these contentions, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, so we shall therefore write to only the first contention. We agree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Pool Depot, Inc.
...the state of Alabama for purposes of the statutory and constitutional provisions at issue in this case. Swicegood v. Century Factors, Inc., 280 Ala. 37, 189 So.2d 776 (1966)." Competitive Edge v. Tony Moore Buick-GMC, 490 So.2d 1242, 1244 (Ala.Civ.App. 1986) (emphasis "`It is evident that, ......
-
SAR Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Dumas Bros. Mfg. Co., 75-2950 Summary Calendar.
...a foreign corporation is doing business within the state of Alabama is a mixed question of law and fact. See Swicegood v. Century Factors, Inc., 1966, 280 Ala. 37, 189 So.2d 776; Marcus v. J. R. Watkins Company, 1966, 279 Ala. 584, 188 So.2d 543. Accordingly, the facts of each case are quit......
-
Paddock, Smith & Aydlotte v. WAAY Television
...this isolated transaction would probably not have been sufficient to subject the agency to Alabama law. See Swicegood v. Century Factors, Inc., 280 Ala. 37, 189 So.2d 776 (1966). Consequently, this agency was subject solely to Georgia corporate law. Had this been a domestic corporation or a......
-
Orrox Corporation v. Rexnord, Inc.
...Ala. 149, 223 So.2d 269; (2) to defeat jurisdiction by Alabama courts of the person of the defendant corporation, Swicegood v. Century Factors, Inc., 280 Ala. 37, 189 So.2d 776; Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968); or (3) to make the buyer more lik......