Neel v. Harding
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 51 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL PROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT. cited 4 N. Ramp. Rep., 221; 14 B. Mon., 14; 2 Smith’s Leading Gases, 5th Amer. ed., €42; 19 Wend., 557; 21 lb., 72; 2 Amer.
Read the full summary
CASE 51 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL PROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT. cited 4 N. Ramp. Rep., 221; 14 B. Mon., 14; 2 Smith’s Leading Gases, 5th Amer. ed., €42; 19 Wend., 557; 21 lb., 72; 2 Amer. Leading Cases, 411; 6 N. Ramp., 30; 11 Wend., 312; 11 Met., {Mass.) 283 ; 10 Peters, 257; 9 Serg. & Rawle, 229; 12 lb., 332; 6 Cow., 484; 10 Ver-Jnont, 182; 26 lb., 19; 5 W. § L., 99; 6 Dow, 243.; 9 Pick., 551 7 Mar. 4* John., 92; Civil Code, sections 400, 123; 13 B. Mon., 466; Goddard vs. MaddocJc, MS. opin., Dec., 1854. cited 3 Dana, 566; 7 lb., 305; 8 B. Mon., 382; 1 lb., 326; Civil Code, sections 400,,…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Simpson
This action was brought against the obligors in a promissory note, which reads as follows,, viz: “$1,075 00.
“ One day after date, we, or either of ns, promise to pay James Hughes the sum of one thousand and seventy-five dollars, for value received,, this 1st day of January, 1856.
“'N, O. Wilson,
“ H. Harding.”
The note was assigned by Hughes, the payee thereof, to Neel, the plaintiff in the action.
A judgment by default was rendered against Wilson, one of the defendants. Harding, the other defendant, filed am answer, in which he alleged that he signed the note sued om as surety, for his…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Leeds v. WakefieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1858
- Kilpatrick v. McGillCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1880