DocketNumber: 7 Div. 855.
Citation Numbers: 77 So. 998, 201 Ala. 336
Judges: THOMAS, J.
Filed Date: 11/15/1917
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/11/2023
Commercial paper in the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value before maturity is not subject to the defenses which would avail against the original payee, unless it is shown that the purchaser had notice of such defense. Merchants' National Bank v. Norris,
"An instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof; if payable to bearer, it is negotiated by delivery." Code, § 4985. The notes here sued on being "payable to order," must have been negotiated, if they were negotiated, "by the indorsement of the holder, completed by delivery." Code, §§ 4985, 5007; Ex parte Goldberg Lewis,
It is well established that, if there be any evidence which tends to prove or to disprove the plaintiff's cause, the trial court should not withdraw the issue of fact from the jury. It is not for the court to judge of the sufficiency of the evidence or decide which of the conflicting tendencies of the evidence should be adopted by the jury, nor to draw the reasonable inferences from the evidence for the jury. M., J.
K. C. R. R. Co. v. Bromberg, Adm'r,
"A court should never direct a verdict when the evidence is such as to afford a reasonable inference of the existence of any fact unfavorable to the right of the party asking the affirmative charge to the verdict." B. R., L. P. Co. v. Colbert,
There were tendencies of evidence, and reasonable inferences deducible, to an effect contrary to the view expressed by the court in the oral charge. The court said to the jury:
"Under the view I take of this case, the plaintiff being a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice, the notes are due the plaintiff, and the court charges the jury that your verdict must be for the plaintiff, if you believe the evidence, for the principal and interest and attorney's fee."
We will not discuss the testimony in detail, for this might tend to embarrass the retrial of the cause on the facts. The question whether the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice, of the notes, should have been submitted to the jury for determination, and not decided by the court, as was done in the foregoing instruction given by the court. Shipp et al. v. Shelton, supra; Penticost v. Massey, ante, p. 261,
Though there may be material contradictions between the direct and the cross examination of a witness, yet this does not warrant the court in disregarding his testimony; but the credence to be accorded the witness must be left to the jury. Lay v. Fuller et al.,
In Powell v. Olds,
Since the cause must be retried, we may say that plea No. 1 was sufficient as the general issue (Will's Gould's Pleading [6th Ed.], p. 48, and note), and that plea 2 was subject to demurrer, in that it did not state when the payment was made, whether before or after suit. The question of costs was at issue under such plea. Schillinger v. Leary,
Reversed and remanded.
ANDERSON, C. J., and MAYFIELD and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.
Penticost v. Massey , 201 Ala. 261 ( 1917 )
Hickox v. Vester Morgan, Inc. , 439 So. 2d 95 ( 1983 )
Alabama City Bank of Gadsden v. Vaughn , 413 So. 2d 1053 ( 1982 )
Wright-Nave Contracting Co. v. Alabama Fuel Iron Co. , 211 Ala. 89 ( 1924 )
M. Frank Sons Co. v. Davis , 214 Ala. 601 ( 1926 )
Liverpool London Globe Ins. Co. v. McCree , 213 Ala. 534 ( 1925 )
Spurlock v. J. T. Knight Son , 244 Ala. 364 ( 1943 )
Alabama Power Co. v. Byars , 236 Ala. 79 ( 1938 )
Sterchi Bros. Stores v. Castleberry , 236 Ala. 349 ( 1938 )
Shafer v. Myers , 215 Ala. 678 ( 1927 )
Harrison v. Wright , 215 Ala. 607 ( 1926 )
Bank of Moundville v. Walsh , 216 Ala. 116 ( 1927 )
Green v. City of Birmingham , 241 Ala. 684 ( 1941 )
Dixie Fire Ins. Co. v. Flippo , 236 Ala. 116 ( 1938 )
Ten Ball Novelty & Manufacturing Co. v. Allen , 255 Ala. 418 ( 1951 )
Blackwell v. Sewall , 280 Ala. 359 ( 1967 )
Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. DeLoach , 280 Ala. 497 ( 1967 )
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Boyer , 357 So. 2d 958 ( 1978 )
Union Central Life Insurance Company v. Scott , 286 Ala. 10 ( 1970 )
Oden-Elliott Lumber Co. v. Daniel-Gaddis Lumber Co. , 210 Ala. 582 ( 1923 )
St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Robbins , 219 Ala. 627 ( 1929 )