Jenkins v. Bass
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Cask 63 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL prom warren circuit court. 'The particular form of the writing sued on being directed and consented to by the defendant to get plaintiff’s money, and the money having been obtained by reason thereof, the plaintiff is entitled to recover. The facts being admitted by the demurrer, the quantum of evidence is not the question to be decided.
Read the full summary
Cask 63 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL prom warren circuit court. 'The particular form of the writing sued on being directed and consented to by the defendant to get plaintiff’s money, and the money having been obtained by reason thereof, the plaintiff is entitled to recover. The facts being admitted by the demurrer, the quantum of evidence is not the question to be decided. (Griffith’s Ex’r v. Collier, 4 Ky, Law Rep., 260.) The ease of Muhling v. Sattler, &e., 3 Met., commented on. 1. A note signed by two obligors payable to the order of themselves, must be endorsed by both in order to create…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion op the court.
The appellant, James L. Jenkins, declared on a writing that reads as follows :
“ Bowling Green, Ky., July 8,1886.
<£ Sixty days after date we promise to pay to the order *398of myself three hundred and sixty dollars, value received, negotiable and payable at Warren Deposit Bank without defalcation. E. R. Murrell.
“J. N. Bass.”
Endorsed on the back of this writing is the following: “ Pay to James L. Jenkins or order. E. R. Murrell.”
The appellant, as the above-named assignee, declared on this writing as a promissory note, and sought to recover judgment on…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Johnson v. TackittCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Norfolk National Bank v. GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890