Citizens' National Bank v. Hubbert
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 104 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL EROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT. There is no law which requires in all cases a suit against the maker in order to hold the assignor. What the law requires is due diligence to collect the money, and such diligence must usually be manifested by suit, but not always. One of the well-established exceptions to the rule is when the maker of the note is a non-resident.
Read the full summary
Case 104 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL EROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT. There is no law which requires in all cases a suit against the maker in order to hold the assignor. What the law requires is due diligence to collect the money, and such diligence must usually be manifested by suit, but not always. One of the well-established exceptions to the rule is when the maker of the note is a non-resident. (Simpson v. Daniel, 1 B. Mon., 250; Smallwood v. Woods, 1 Bibb, 545; Clay v. Johnson, 6 Mon., 644; Wood v. Berthund, 4 J. J. Mar., 307; Stapp v. Anderson, 1 Mar., 540; Tucker v. Fogle, 7 Bush, 294;…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Pryor
The Empire & Dublin Railroad Company made its note payable to the order of the Indianapolis Car & Manufacturing Company for $4,250 in ninety days, at the Third National Bank in Chattanooga.
This note was indorsed by the payee and also by the New Albany Forge and Rolling Mill Company, and by Hubbert & Hubbert, who were accommodation indorsers, and at Hubbert’s instance was discounted by the appellant, the Citizens’ National Bank. The note is non-negotiable, but at the date of its maturity was protested for non-payment, and the Citizens Bank (the appellant) sought to make Hubbert & Hubbert, the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Francis v. GrantCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1881
- Tucker v. FogleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1870
- Brinker v. PerryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1824