Kuykendall v. Ruckman
West Virginia Supreme Court
Kuykendall Bherrard, merchants, brought an action of debt in the circuit court of Hampshire county, for two hundred and thirty-nine dollars and fifty-six cents, against Gipson Ruckman, Matthew Combs, and Joseph Haines.
Read the full summary
Kuykendall Bherrard, merchants, brought an action of debt in the circuit court of Hampshire county, for two hundred and thirty-nine dollars and fifty-six cents, against Gipson Ruckman, Matthew Combs, and Joseph Haines. The declaration was filed at the February rules, 1866, and averred that the defendants had, on the 15th day of January, 1861, by their single bill, sealed with their seals, promised to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and severally, on demand, the sum above mentioned. The defendants at the May term, 1866, pleaded non est factum, and one of the defendants, Gipson Ruckman, made oath…
1Opinion of the Court
Brown, President.
This was an action of debt on a bond payable on demand, against three obligors, who pleaded non est factum. The plaintiffs in the court below, after proving the signature of *337one of the obligors to the said bond, but without having proved the signatures of the other two obligors, offered the bond in evidence to the jury, to which the defendants by their counsel objected, but the objection was overruled by the court and the bond permitted to go as evidence to the jury. To this ruling of the court the objectors excepted and now assign the same for error in the appellate court.
The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Payne v. Britton'sSupreme Court of Virginia · 1828
3Cited by8 opinions
- Chesapeake Appalachia v. Cecil L. HIckman, etc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. KeadleWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1908
- Stoneman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1874
- Stoneman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1874
- Stoneman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1874
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.