Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

124 Ala. 535

Richardson Bros. & Co. v. Fields

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1899

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1899-11-15

Tried before Hon. J. A. Bilbro. The plaintiffs in this case, who are the appellants, were the transferrees of a promissory note executed by the defendants to Lovett, the payee of the note for services he had rendered to the Blount College Co., a corporation. The makers of the note were the directors of the College Company, and there was no consideration for the note except the obligation of the company to Lovett.

Relies on Rutledge's Adm'r v. Townsend, Crane & Co. · Gordon v. McIlwain · Thornton v. Guice

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1942

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

40189919001910192019301940decided

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 →

' DOWDELL, J.

¶1— Among other pleas filed by the defendant in- this case- was the plea of a Avant of consideration. The evidence; without conflict, shows that the note, the foundation of this suit, Avas given for an antecedent debt of the Blount College Co., a body corporate, to the payee, J. A. B. Lovett, for services Avhich had *537been 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 defendants to pay the debt of another, on no other consideration than the debt, is a nutlum pactum, no matter what form the promise may assume. — Watson v. Reynolds, 54 Ala. 191; Beale v. Ridgway 18 Ala. 117; Rutledge v. Townsend, 38 Ala. 712; Hester v. Wesson, 6 Ala. 415; Underwood v. Lovelace, 61 Ala, 155; Thornton v. Guice, 73 Ala. 322; Doss v. Peterson, 82 Ala. 252; Russell v. Wright, 98 Ala. 55. 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 Avant of consideration of the note, under this phase of , the defense, the aflirmatiA'e charge requested by the defendants- was properly given. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

/124/ala/535 · .json · Public domain