Legal Opinion
Whitney v. Sudduth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Decided July 8, 1863PublishedCited by 7 opinions
CASE 25 — PETITION ORDINARY cited 2 Kent’s Com., 31; Story on Agency, 147; 1 B. Mon., 201; 3 Exch., 3; Ckitty onContracts, 210; 3 Marsh., 258; 7 Mon., 356; 2. Bibb, 397; 3 Mrsh., 184; 1 Greenleaj's Ev., sec. 282; 1 Mason’s Rep., 11; 3 Bet.. 397. cited 1 Met., 71; 1 Marsh., 485; 10 B. Mon., 351; 16 Pick., 347; Story on Agency, secs. 154,276; Angelí & Ames on Corporations, pages 284 — 5; 10 Gill & Johnson, 280.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Duvall
delivered tee opinion op .the count:
The appellant sued the appellee on the following note:
“On or before the 7th of September, 1861; we or either of us, Joseph Cantrill, Pres’t, Dr. Jos. Cantrill, L. G. Sudduth, Jas. T. Ware, and J. W. Allison, Directors of Centreville and Jacksonville Turnpike Co., promise to pay to George H. Whitney, or order, fifteen hundred and nine dollars, for value received, this 7th day oí March, 1861.
(Signed:)
JOS. CANTRELL, Prest.,
LEVI G. SUDDUTH,
J. T. WARE, ■
JNO. w; ALLISON,
JOS. CANTRILL, Je.”
The judgment of the court below was, in effect, that the plaintiff was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Trask v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1841
3Cited by7 opinions
- Flittner v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Yowell v. DoddCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1868
- McKensey v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889
- Griswold v. PrattMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1845
- Smith v. SullivanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.