Tatum v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 05 February 1914
• Citation: 185 Ala. 249,64 So. 561
• Parties: TATUM v. COMMERCIAL BANK & TRUST CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

64 So. 561

185 Ala. 249

TATUM v. COMMERCIAL BANK & TRUST CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 5, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; W.W. Pearson, Judge.

Assumpsit by the Commercial Bank & Trust Company against Howell Tatum with garnishment in aid of suit served upon A.H. Arrington and attachment levied upon real estate. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The notes sued on as set out in the complaint were executed by Howell Tatum, payable to Loren B. Williamson, 33 in number of various amounts, aggregating $10,000, all made in 1911, on various dates, and payable four months after date to the order of L.B. Williamson. The complaint alleges that each of said notes was dated at Louisville, Ky., and being negotiable and payable at the Commercial Bank & Trust Company, and each bearing interest from date at 6 per cent., each being past due and unpaid and the property of the plaintiff, having been by the payee therein indorsed in blank.

The following are the pleas referred to in the opinion: (7) "Defendant was at the time of the making of the note sued on a young man having just attained his majority only a few months prior thereto; that L.B. Williamson, whose name appears on each of said notes, induced defendant to sign each of said notes upon the assurance that nothing would ever come of it, and that defendant would not be liable for one cent on account of any of said notes; that defendant ever since he had been about 16 years of age had lived in the home of the said Williamson continuously up until the time he executed the said notes, and had been reared by the said L.B Williamson in a quasi parental relation, and had been trained in business by him, and was working for him in the insurance business at the time of the execution of said notes, and at the time defendant's name was signed thereto; that by reason of his undue influence on defendant the said L.B Williamson induced defendant to sign the said notes, and assured defendant that it would mean nothing to defendant and would not result in any liability upon defendant by reason of the signing of any of said notes." (8) "Defendant had, since he was about 16 years of age, lived in the home of one L.B. Williamson, who was the beneficial party on each of said notes, and defendant so lived with him almost continuously until after the execution of the notes sued upon; that the said notes were renewals of notes previously given with the same names as parties thereto; and that many, if not all, of said notes which preceded the renewals thereof, were executed while defendant was yet in his minority, and incapable of making a contract; that both at the time said original notes and renewals thereof were executed, the said Williamson assured defendant that the act of putting his name upon said notes and the renewals thereof would be of no consequence to defendant and fix no liability upon him; and defendant was then working for said L.B. Williamson and drawing a salary for services in the insurance business, and was so subject to the influence of the said L.B. Williamson that he unhesitatingly signed the said notes and the renewals thereof, and heard nothing further of the transaction or of the payment or nonpayment of any of said notes, or renewals thereof until the bringing of this suit, and defendant says that plaintiff had notice of the said undue influence exerted upon defendant in signing the said note, and each of them, and took the notes with such knowledge, and defendant received no consideration for said notes or either of them." (9) Same as 7 in all particulars with the added averment: "And defendant avers that plaintiff had knowledge of the undue influence which the said L.B. Williamson had over defendant, and defendant received none of the considerations of said notes, or either of them. And defendant further avers that the said notes were payable to said L.B. Williamson, and that said Williamson and not defendant received the consideration therefor, and that no consideration moved from defendant to said Williamson for the signing of said notes or either of them." (10) "Williamson was the payee of said several notes, and defendant was the maker thereof, and that as between said maker and said payee there was no consideration therefor, and plaintiff bought said notes with knowledge that there was no such consideration."

Defendant interposed a motion to quash the attachment levied upon the real estate based upon the ground that the main suit arose upon promissory notes executed in Louisville, Ky., and payable in Louisville, Ky., which said notes were executed by defendant, who was a nonresident of Alabama, to a holder and plaintiff who is a nonresident of Alabama, and because that the alleged interest in said real property of defendant in Alabama was not subject to such levy under the laws of Alabama, and because the levy was made upon an interest in real...