May v. Quimby & Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 32 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. . CITED— 1 Greenleaf on Ev., sees. 386, 390, 426, 522. Peak. Ev., 158; 1 Starkie, 125. Phillips on Ev., note 122, p. 161. 2 Wendell, 527; 15 Pick., 543. 20 Pick., 441 ; 8 Pick., 51. 7 Watts, 272; 37 Eng.
Read the full summary
CASE 32 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. . CITED— 1 Greenleaf on Ev., sees. 386, 390, 426, 522. Peak. Ev., 158; 1 Starkie, 125. Phillips on Ev., note 122, p. 161. 2 Wendell, 527; 15 Pick., 543. 20 Pick., 441 ; 8 Pick., 51. 7 Watts, 272; 37 Eng. C. L., 191. 10 Ad. and El., 606. 12 Pick., 565; Schaak vs. Stafford. 3 Met., 246 ; Finnell vs. Cox. 1 Met., 575; Smith vs. Northern Bank. 2 J. J. M., 508 ; Pendleton vs. Speed. 1 Dana, 430 ; Long vs. Ray. 5 Johnson’s R., 54 ; Ray vs. Coddington. 1 Met., 618-35; Lee’s adm’r vs. Smead, Collard, and Hughes. CITED— 1…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE WILLIAMS
delivered the opinion op the court:
This was a suit by appellees against appellant and his co-indorser, W. A. Mayfield, on a bill of exchange drawn at Louisville, November 7th, 1864, at thirty days, for two thousand dollars,, by Samuel Gamage to his own order, on Thomas Hughes & Co., Chicago, Illinois, accepted by them, and indorsed by Samuel Gamage, W. A. Mayfield; and W. J. May.
The defendants for defense averred'that appellees were not the holders of said bill, nor had purchased it from any party thereto, or any other entitled to it, or had received it in the usual course of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lee's Administrator v. Smead, Collard & HughesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
3Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. LockridgeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1871
- Sanford v. LowenthalCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1880