History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hinton v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
109 So. 103
| Ala. | 1926
|
Check Treatment

Plea 2 was that of payment, and the testimony offered was pertinent to that issue, if after the due date of the note. Frank v. Thompson, 105 Ala. 211, 16 So. 634. The note is dated April 3, 1924, and was due and payable November 15, 1924. The court was not informed that the answer of the witness was expected to be that the moneys paid in 1924 to the Pickens County State Bank or the Federal Reserve Bank through the Pickens County State Bank were paid upon said note or after its due date. We cannot find error in this state of the record.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE, THOMAS, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Hinton v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama
Date Published: Jun 10, 1926
Citation: 109 So. 103
Docket Number: 6 Div. 716.
Court Abbreviation: Ala.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.