Cooper v. Poston
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 30 — PETITION ORDINARY cited 15 B. M., 466; 14 B. M., 86; 2 Met., 499 ; 3 Met., 285, 434. cited 12 B. M., 506 ; 2 Met., 499 ; Civ. Code, sec. 123 ; 2 Met., 90. cited 2 Dana, 115. ■
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BULLITT
delivered the oíinioh of the court:
We cannot assume that the defendant, Mary Cooper, the payor, is the same person as Mary Cooper, the payee. There may be two persons of the same name. .The legal presumption is in favor of the validity of the contract.
In behalf of the assignee of the note, it must be presumed, prima facie, that the payor and payee are different persons; and, in the absence of evidence upon the subject, it was the duty of the jury so to find. Moreover, if necessary to sustain the judgment, it would be our duty to presume, in the absence of a bill of exceptions,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Home Trust Co. v. JosephsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- Dine v. DonnellyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- Odland v. HamrickWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1944
- Means & Russell Iron Co. v. Inland Gas Corp.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933