Gatliff v. Cram, Rogers & Co.
W. H. GATLIFF v. CRAM, ROGERS & CO.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Lawrence F. Terry (author), Solomon Heydenfeldt
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Terry
TERRY, J.
— The complaint in this case does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The fact that defendants drew a bill in favor of a third party, which bill was protested for nonpayment, and notice of protest given, certainly would not entitle the plaintiff to recover, without showing that he was the holder or indorsee of the bill. The judgment in this case under the present pleadings would foe no bar to a suit upon the same bill by the holder.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
I concur: Heydenfeldt, J.