Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Anderson

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided October 7, 1836PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Assumpsits. From the Circuit Cduáí for Jefferson Countt. The acceptor of a bill is thé principai debtor: he cannot assume the attitude of a surety, even when the acceptance was merely for the accommodatiou of another party; to the acceptor, the tnnéíretpecdng sureties do not they^did^woul'd not be available nponSla written ■acceptance—for law'0 merchant, there is a suffi' c)ent. considera- acpeptancesof bills in the common forma, (e..g.‘I ^ept’the with-within the act of…

Read the full summary

Assumpsits. From the Circuit Cduáí for Jefferson Countt. The acceptor of a bill is thé principai debtor: he cannot assume the attitude of a surety, even when the acceptance was merely for the accommodatiou of another party; to the acceptor, the tnnéíretpecdng sureties do not they^did^woul'd not be available nponSla written ■acceptance—for law'0 merchant, there is a suffi' c)ent. considera- acpeptancesof bills in the common forma, (e..g.‘I ^ept’the with-within the act of cefoaínSun¿eale'á writings 'the éfties-and t^at assumpsit is still actionP«^onUS¡ acceptances wii tms“

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Robertson

Judgment haVing been obtained by the plaintiff below; . ,. c . .. ... 111 ai1 action ot assumpsit, on a written acceptance endorsed, ibI accept the within,” and signed by the accept- . , ° , , r tor, on a bill ot exchange, drawn on him—two ques* tions are presented for revision: First1—Is the fact that 1 , ... . , , , . . the payee, before the bill became payable, agreed with ¿[rawer that pe would not sooner than two or threé , months after the day of payment, present it for payment? aii avaiíablé defence to the aütion? and, second-Is assumpsit maintainable?

fiirsí. The modern and more…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Law v. BrinkerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1883
  2. Crutchfield v. MartinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
  3. Diversy v. MoorIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
  4. Mechanics' Bank v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1860
  5. Maas & Schwarz v. Montgomery Iron WorksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API