Adams Oil Co. v. Christmas Hughes
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 83 — PETITION ORDINARY 1. Plaintiff should have been required to elect which cause of action they would prosecute. They first sued on the note and by an amendment, without abandoning that cause of action, set up a cause of action on the account, which was a departure from the original cause of action. 2. The peremptory instruction should have been given because the evidence shows that Wood was not defendant’s agent and had no authority either to execute the note for the…
Read the full summary
Case 83 — PETITION ORDINARY 1. Plaintiff should have been required to elect which cause of action they would prosecute. They first sued on the note and by an amendment, without abandoning that cause of action, set up a cause of action on the account, which was a departure from the original cause of action. 2. The peremptory instruction should have been given because the evidence shows that Wood was not defendant’s agent and had no authority either to execute the note for the company, or to make any contract for it, and in addition to that shows that the credit was extended to Wood himself in…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BURNAM
delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was brought by appellees against appellants upon two notes signed by the “Adams Oil Co., by N. Wood, *566Manager,” one dated May 24, 1894:, for $125, due thirty days after date, and the other May 24, 1894, for $191.50, due three months after date. lit is further alleged that defendants were a foreign corporation, nonresidents of thei State and absent from the State, and a general attachment was. sued out.
Appellants for answer denied that they executed to the plaintiff’s either of the two notes sued on, or that they at any time ever…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Benge's Administrator v. FoutsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Maverick Oil & Gas Co. v. HowellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
- Stephenson & Co. v. BradburyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
- Loretto Literary & Benevolent Society v. GarciaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1913