Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

108 Ala. 227

Cole v. Tuck

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1895

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1895-11-15

- Tried before the Hon. J. A J’Bilbro. : '•'This' action •-wa‘s *’originally brought • by J. H. Tuck against'-'C'.':E.'Cole,' before a justice of the peáce, and thence appealed to the circuit court, where it was tried bbfbre thé judge without the intervention of a jury; the amount involved being less than twenty dollars.

Relies on Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hall · Columbus & Western Railway Co. v. Bridges · Copeland & Brantley v. Cunningham

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1895-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1935

4 state decisions

1018951900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HARALSON, J.

¶1The defendant was certainly not chargeable with the $10, attorney’s fee. He excluded it, by the terms of his endorsement, limiting his liability, as indorser to the note, to $15. only. But demurrer was not the proper remedy. If that part of the complaint in respect to the attorney’s fee, had been stricken, a good complaint would have remained. A motion to strike in such case, is the proper remedy, except in suits on penal bonds, assigning different breaches, some well. and others not well assigned. — L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Hall, 91 Ala. 118; C. & W. R. Co. v. Bridges, 86 Ala. 448; Copeland v. Cunningham, 63 Ala. 394. The demurrer to that part of the complaint claiming attorney’s fees was,, therefore, properly overruled.

¶2The demurrer to the entire complaint was also properly overruled, if on no other grounds, certainly for the reason, that the complaint set out several excuses for not having brought suit against the maker of the note indorsed by defendant, within the time required by statute for instituting such suit to bind an indorser, some of which were certainly good. — 3 Brick. Dig. 705, §§ 67, 68.

¶3The facts on which the case was tried by the court, without a jury, do not sustain the complaint, and the finding of the court. The burden was on the plaintiff to make out his case. On his evidence, it is not clear he was entitled to a verdict, and the evidence of defendant makes a plain case against him.

¶4The judgment of the court below is reversed, and one will be here rendered in favor of the defendant.

¶5Reversed and rendered.

/108/ala/227 · .json · Public domain