McKenzie v. Clanton

Decided January 15, 1859

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1859-01-15

[ACTION OK BILI, OF EXCHANGE, BY ENDORSEE AGAINST ENDORSER.] Í. Damages against payee and acceptor.—In an action against the payee antf endorser of an inland bill of exchange, duly protested' for non-payment,, tbe mere fact that the bill was addressed to,, and: accepted by the defendant,, does not relieve him from tila payment of damages. 2. When writ of inquiry is unnecessary.—In an action on an inland bill of exchange, duly protested for non-payment, by endorsee against payee aiy endorser, the statute (Code, § 2366) authorizes the rendition of a final, judgment by default, without the intervention of a jury, for the amount of the bill, with interest and damages.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1941

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

RICE, C. J.—

¶1The assignments of error in this case raise two- questions.

¶2The first is, whether the payee and endorser of an inland bill of exchange, duly protested for non-payment, is relieved from the payment of damages, by fhe mere fact that the bill was addressed to, and accepted by him. We decide that in the negative.—Code, § 1537 ; Story on Bills of Exchange, §§ 108-111.

¶3The second is, whether, in a suit on such bill against the endorser, the court can, without the intervention of a jury, render a final judgment by default against him, for the amount of the bill, with the interest and damages due thereon. We decide that in the affirmative, upon the authority of section 2366 of the Code.

¶4Judgment affirmed.