Flowers v. Bitting
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
B. F. SAFFOLD, J.
The bill of exchange, the foundation of the suit, had the appellant’s name signed to it as *449 drawer and indorser, by his mark in the usual way, but without an attesting '.witness.
The mark of a person who cannot write is not his signature, unless his name is written near it, and it is witnessed by a person who writes his own name as a witness. —Rev. Code, 1.
The bill above mentioned does not, therefore, purport to .be executed by the party sought to be charged. It rather purports not to be.
There was no evidence of a demand for payment, and notice given of the failure. These were necessary to fix the liability of the drawer or indorser. — Jordan v. Bell, 8 Port. 53 ; Rives v. Parmley, 18 Ala. 256 ,
The bill of exchange was the only evidence offered by the plaintiff. Upon this, the court charged the jury that, if they believed the evidence, they must find for the plaintiff. The charge was erroneous.
The defense that the consideration was a slave purchased is not available. — Mudd v. McElvaine, January Term, 1870.
A writing signed- as this bill was is not necessarily inadmissible as evidence, because of the imperfect signature. It may be received as an adminacle of documentary proof in an action. — Story on Rills of Exchange, § 53, note 6.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.