Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

123 Ala. 222

Breitling v. Marx

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1898

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1898-11-15

. Appeal from the; Circuit Court of Hale. Tried before tlie Hon. John Moore. This was an action brought by the appellee, J. L. Marx, against the appellant, F. A. Breitling, and counted upon two promissory notes, alleged to have been negotiable instruments, and which were made payable to i-I. W. Rumbley & Co. and were indorsed to the plaintiff, and owned by him at the time of the institution of the siiit.

Relies on Carter v. Penn · Blackwell v. Hamilton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1898-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1948

8 state decisions

50189819001910192019301940decided

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 →

McCLELLAN, C. J.

¶1A written promise under seal to pay money is not' a promissory note, nor can it be declared on as such; but a writing is not under seal unless the purpose to seal it is expressed or indicated in its body: The mere suffixing a scroll containing the word “Seal” or the letters “L. S.” to the name of the subscriber does not make it a writing under seal.—Carter & Carter v. Penn, 4 Ala. 140; Blackwell v. Hamilton, 47 Ala. 470. The obligations upon which this suit is brought are properly declared on as promissory notes: They as described in the complaint and in fact are commercial paper. Plaintiff being an indorsee of said notes, and alleging in the complaint that he purchased them for value before maturity and without notice of any defenses to them, pleas 4, 5 and 6, which set up want or failure of consideration for the notes, but failed to deny the averments of the complaint that plaintiff was a purchaser for value before maturity and without notice, presented no defense to the action. Plaintiff’s demurrer to them was, however, overruled. He thereupon took issue upon them. This he should not have done. His remedy was to decline to plead' over, suffer judgment and appeal. Having taken issue upon them, however, he- thereby made them material and vital. On the trial not only did the defendant prove want or failure of consideration, but the plaintiff admitted, that the notes were without any consideration. On this state of pleading, proof and admission, the defendant was entitled to.verdict and judgment, and the court erred in giving the affirmative charge for the plaintiff.

¶2Reversed and remanded.

/123/ala/222 · .json · Public domain