Piner v. Clary
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 24. APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT. Ord. Pet. Argued — 1. That there exists in the law a clear distinction between checks, bills of exchange, and promissory notes.
Read the full summary
Case 24. APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT. Ord. Pet. Argued — 1. That there exists in the law a clear distinction between checks, bills of exchange, and promissory notes. (Chitty on Bills, 52-322; 2 Story’s C. C. R., 512; Smith’s Mercantile Law, 197; 6 Cowen, 490; 2 Hill, 425; 13 Pet., 564; Hardin, 218; 1 Mar., 540; 2 Lb., 348; 3 Lb., 163; 6 Mon., 89; 2 Dana, 214) And according to well settled law, the liability of the parties to such instruments varies according to the nature of the instruments. If the certificate of deposit, exhibited in this case, is in the nature of a bill of exchange, there…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Simpson
delivered the opinion of the court:
On the 14th of October, 1854, Clary transferred to Piner a certificate of deposit, which was made out in the following form, viz:
“Peoples’ Bank, Cincinnati, Oct. 5th, 1851. “$100. No. 3577.
“U. Clary has deposited in this bank, one hundred dollars, payable to the order of himself in currency, with interest at the rate of six per centum per annum on the return of this certificate.
“P. B. Manchester.”
The transfer was made by an indorsement as follows :
“Pay A. J. Piner.” “U. Clary.”
Piner and Clary both resided in Newport, at the time the transfer was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chenowith & Co. v. ChamberlinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1845