Buford v. Banton

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Buford v. Banton

26 Ky. 431, 3 J.J. Marsh. 431, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 86

DecidedApril 9, 1830

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Ky. 431 (Buford v. Banton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buford v. Banton, 26 Ky. 431, 3 J.J. Marsh. 431, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 86 (Ky. Ct. App. 1830).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Underwood

delivered the opinion of the Court

A count in assumpsit for money or dollars, is not supported by proof, that notes on the bank of the commonwealth were due. The court, on the motion of the defendant, should have instructed the jury to find as in case of non-suit, and erred irj not doing so.

Wherefore, the judgment and verdict are set aside, and the cause remanded, for a venire de novo, and for proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion.

The plaintiff in error must recover his costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judge Underwood

delivered the opinion of the Court

A count in assumpsit for money or dollars, is not supported by proof, that notes on the bank of the commonwealth were due. The court, on the motion of the defendant, should have instructed the jury to find as in case of non-suit, and erred irj not doing so.

Wherefore, the judgment and verdict are set aside, and the cause remanded, for a venire de novo, and for proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion.

The plaintiff in error must recover his costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Ky. 431, 3 J.J. Marsh. 431, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buford-v-banton-kyctapp-1830.