176 So. 297 | Ala. | 1937
The suit was upon note of intestate presented to his administrator.
Other suits of like nature are White v. Sowell,
The note sued on was dated January 4, 1927, and due one year after date. Payments were made thereon in 1928, 1929, and 1931. The credits on, and the indorsements of payment on, the note presented questions for the jury. So far as the evidence shows, only J. R. Lowe and J. A. Long, the payee, were present. It is without dispute that the payee had the note in his manual possession and that he went to see the administrator of the Lowe estate. *612 The rational conclusions reached by the jury were that of a due presentment of the note for payment to that personal representative, and that the payments so acknowledged by the indorsement were made out of the funds of said estate.
The case was tried on the plea of the statute of nonclaim. The law governing the presentation of claims against an estate need not be repeated. Section 5818, Code; Brannan v. Sherry,
It is further established that a sufficient presentation requires that the nature and amount of the claim must be brought to the attention of the personal representative by the person having the right of presentation and in the manner required by law; and that the personal representative is looked to for payment. White et al. v. Blair, ante, p. 119,
It is further declared that payment of interest on a note by several others as well as the decedent, after the appointment of a personal representative, is not sufficient to remove the bar of the statute of nonclaim. North Birmingham American Bank v. White,
It is insisted by appellants that this case is different from White et al. v. Blair, supra, as to the fact of presentation of the note for payment to the personal representative, and where the holding was that the court did not err in submitting to the jury the matter of the presentation of the note.
In Pharis v. Leachman,
The note was properly before the jury. The witness testified that he was familiar with and knew the handwriting of J. R. Lowe, the administrator, and his recognition of the signature as that of Mr. Lowe attested his knowledge of the handwriting to the jury. This was relevant and properly submitted. Springer v. Sullivan,
It will be observed that due presentation of this claim, if made, was under the statute, section 5818, Code, before the amendment by the Gen.Acts of 1931, p. 837. It is a like matter as the claim of White et al. v. Blair (Ala.Sup.)
If there was a due presentation under the former statute, nothing further was required to be done in the matter of presentation under the present statute.
The record has been carefully examined and we are of opinion that a jury question was presented.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.