Case ID: port_9/html/0471-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ORMOND, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FORD vs. THE BANK OF MOBILE.
    1.In a proceeding against defendants, on a notice from the bank, the judgment must shew that the court had jurisdiction.
    Error to Mobile Circuit court.
    Proceedings on a notice from the bank. Judgment for plaintiff below.
    There were three several cases between the same parties, brought up by writs of error, to which the subjoined opinion is applicable.
    The errors assigned were—
    1. That the evidence of the note set forth in the record, is not such as gave the court jurisdiction of the motion;
    2. That the bank had no right to sue in a summary manner, upon the note described in the record;
    3. That the bank did not make the motion on the day specified.
    J A. Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
   ORMOND, J.

This was a motion in the court below, by the bank, against the plaintiff in error, as endorser of a promissory note.

The judgment does not show, that the note on which the motion is founded, was negotiable at the Bank of Mobile: it does not, therefore, appear that the court had jurisdiction. This fact does appear in the notice; but as no action of the court was had upon it, it cannot be considered as part of the record. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, on the authority of the cases of Jos. Bates, jr. vs. The Planters’ and Merchants’ Bank, and Henry S. Levert vs. The Planters’ and Merchants’ Bank.