International Harvester Co. v. Gladney

International Harvester Co. v. Gladney. Assumpsit. (Decided Nov. 26, 1908. 47 South. 733.) Bills and Notes; Issues; Evidence. — Under sections 1801-2, Code 1896, the denial of the execution or assignment of an instrument sued on must be verified, and notes are admissible in evidence in the absence of such verified denial, in proof of what they purport to be on their face, together with the transfers and other endorsements thereon. Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewer. Action by the International Harvester Company against S. J. Gladney. From a judgment for defendant, .plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded. There was no plea denying the execution or the indorsement of the note, or that they were not the property of the plaintiff. The objections to the introduction of the notes were as follows: First, said notes or bonds are commercial paper and payable at a bank or banking house, and that they are not properly transferable; second, that the legal title to said notes or bonds still remains in the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company, as the transfer should have been signed by the McCormick Harvesting Machine. Company by its vice president, giving his name, or by its secretary, giving his name. At the conclusion of the testimony, the notes • being excluded, the general charge was given for the defendant. Hooten & Overton, for appellants. Counsel insist that the court erred in excluding the notes 'and bond, -and in giving the affirmative charge for defendants, appellees and cite: K. O. M. <& B. R. R. Go. v. Oobb, 100 Ala. 228; LaJceside L. Go. v. Dromgoole, 89 Ala. 505; 5 Wall. 784; 11 Paige, 635; 97 Mass. 494; 101 Mass. 57. E-. G. Rowland, for appellee. No brief came to tbe reporter. [MAJORITY — SIMPSON, J.] SIMPSON, J. — This suit was brought by tbe appellant against tbe appellee on negotiable promissory notes or bonds. Tbe complaint describes tbe notes or bonds as made payable to the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company, with tbe statement that they have “been duly transferred to tbe plaintiff in writing.” Tbe plaintiff offered in evidence the notes (under seal) made to tbe McCormick Harvesting Machine Company, with two indorsements, to wit: “For value received I hereby guarantee the payment of tbe within note at maturity, or at any time thereafter, and waive demand, protest and notice of nonpayment thereof. [Signed] McCormick Harvesting Machine Co.” And: “Tbe McCormick Harvesting Machine Company for value received does hereby transfed, assign, indorse and deliver tbe within note or bond to the International Harvester Company of America. [Signed] Hiram B. Prentice, Asst. Secty. G. A. Rannly, Vice-President.” Objection was made and sustained; tbe court refusing to allow said notes to be introduced in evidence. Our decisions have been uniform that under sections 1801, 1802, Code 1896, if tbe making or assignment of a note be alleged in tbe complaint, or if it purports on its face to be signed, neither tbe mailing not the assignment can be denied except by a sworn plea. —Alabama Coal Mining Co. v. Brainard, 35 Ala. 476, 480; Montgomery & Eufaula Railrod v. Trebles, 44 Ala. 255, 258; Oxford, Iron Co. v. Spradley. 46 Ala. 99, 104, 105; Wimberly v. Dallas, 52 Ala. 196, 197; Ledbetter & Co. et al. v. Vinton, 108 Ala. 644, 646, 18 South. 692; Carter et al. v. Long Bros., 125 Ala. 280, 290, 28 South. 74. The court erred in excluding said notes. The judgment of the court is reversed, and the cause remanded. Tyson, C. J., and Haralson and Denson, JJ., concur.