Kelly & Co. v. Smith & Shotwell
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 55 — IN EQUITY APPEAL FROM LYON CIRCUIT COURT. The facts appear in the opinion of the court. The laws of Louisiana govern the contract; and under those laws the defendants may rely upon the defense set up in their answer.
Read the full summary
CASE 55 — IN EQUITY APPEAL FROM LYON CIRCUIT COURT. The facts appear in the opinion of the court. The laws of Louisiana govern the contract; and under those laws the defendants may rely upon the defense set up in their answer. (Civil Code of Louisiana, articles 2496, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2505, 2506, 2507, 2509, 2510, 2514, 2519, 2520, 2521, 2525.) The defendants had the same right to make the defense relied on, to the action brought by Smith and Shotwell, that they would have had if the action had been in the names of the payees of the bill. (Rev. Stat., chap. 22, sec. 6,p. 193.) Section 31 of…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE WOOD
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.:
This was an action in the Lyon circuit court by Smith & Shotwell, the indorsees and holders, against Kelly & Co., the acceptors, upon a bill of exchange, drawn in New Orleans, but payable in Kentucky, at the bank of Louisville, addressed to the drawees at Suwannee Iron Works, Eddyville, Kentucky, and accepted by them, as we must infer, at that place.
The record shows that Smith & Shotwell were the holders of the bill, bona fide, for a valuable consideration, before protest.
■ The defense was, that the bill was drawn in the State of Louisiana, that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Early v. McCartCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1834
3Cited by27 opinions
- Powers v. HarlowMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Owens v. LewisIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Town of Needham v. Winslow Nurseries, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953
- Proctor v. Union Coal Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Jenkins v. LykesSupreme Court of Florida · 1882
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.