DocketNumber: 7 Div. 975.
Citation Numbers: 150 So. 807, 25 Ala. App. 527
Judges: RICE, Judge.
Filed Date: 6/30/1933
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/11/2023
This was a suit by appellee against appellant and two others — who do not appeal, but are brought before this court under and in pursuance to the terms of Code 1923, § 6143 — based upon a promissory note, etc., signed by appellant, etc., and payable to appellee.
The note in question was duly offered in the evidence, and it appeared to be regular in all respects; was, apparently, duly signed as principal by appellant and her two comakers. She does not deny signing same; admits her signature as and where it appears; admits everything necessary to corroborate the case made by appellee's testimony against her, which fully entitled appellee to recover, etc., except she says that, while her name is regularly and at the proper place affixed to the note as a comaker, she signed, in fact, but as a witness to the other signatures appended along with her own. A special plea was interposed by appellant apparently intending to set up this contention as a defense on her part to the suit. But said plea did not in fact set up said contention; that it did not do so is probably the reason appellee did not see fit to demur to said plea, because said contention — whether true or not — could not successfully be interposed as a defense to the action here. The plea as drawn and filed had no support in the evidence.
In the case of Holczstein et al. v. Bessemer Trust Savings Bank,
There being no legal evidence contrary to the right, etc., of appellee to recover, it was proper for the court to give, as it did, the duly requested general affirmative charge, with hypothesis, etc., to find in her favor.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed. *Page 529