Alley v. Hopkins
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 108 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT. There was no such contract for indulgence as will release the sureties. (Tudor v. Goodloe, 1 B. Mon., 322; Kenningham v. Bedford, 1 B. Mon., 325; Patton v. Shanklin, 14 B. Mon., 17; Robertson v. Miller, 2 Bush, 187; Preston v. Henning, &c., 6 Bush, 560.) There was a consideration for the contract for indulgence, which was entered into without the knowledge of the sureties, and therefore the sureties are released.
Read the full summary
Case 108 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT. There was no such contract for indulgence as will release the sureties. (Tudor v. Goodloe, 1 B. Mon., 322; Kenningham v. Bedford, 1 B. Mon., 325; Patton v. Shanklin, 14 B. Mon., 17; Robertson v. Miller, 2 Bush, 187; Preston v. Henning, &c., 6 Bush, 560.) There was a consideration for the contract for indulgence, which was entered into without the knowledge of the sureties, and therefore the sureties are released. (Robinson v. Miller, &c., 2 Bush, 179; McComb v. Kittridge, 14 Ohio Rep., 351; Fawcett v. Freshwater, 31 Ohio St., 637;…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG
delivered tiif, opinion of the court.
Several years prior to 1886 John Alley loaned to the firm of Hogan & Son $1,000, and upon the back of tbe firm’s note for that sum the names of Hopkins and the other appellees appeared as accommodation endorsers.
On June 11th of the year named the form of the paper was changed, and, under the firm’s name, the appellees wrote *669their names as sureties. This note was due in twelve months, and contained no provision as to interest. On it were the endorsements, “Interest paid up to June 11, 1888,*’ and “Interest paid up to June 11,1889.”
In…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Robinson v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1867
3Cited by2 opinions
- Morehead v. Citizens Deposit BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Bates' Administrator v. LockeryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931