Ford v. Leatherer

7 Ky. 512, 4 Bibb 512, 1817 Ky. LEXIS 29
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedApril 19, 1817
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 Ky. 512 (Ford v. Leatherer) 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
Ford v. Leatherer, 7 Ky. 512, 4 Bibb 512, 1817 Ky. LEXIS 29 (Ky. Ct. App. 1817).

Opinion

OPIifpN .of the Court, by

Judge Logaw.

The only question presented for our determination in this case, is whether a magistrate can entertain jurisdiction to recover hack §50, which had been advanced in ex-* change for a bank note, which had been altered frotn five to fifty'dollars ?

There is no doubt that an action of assumpsit will lie to recover hack money which had been advanced upon a fraudulent consideration, or the want of consideration. And by the act of 1812, to increase the-jurisdiction of magistrates, exclusive original jurisdiction is given to them of ail sums not exceeding §50, founded on any specialty, bill, or note'in writing, or account. An action of assumpsit is the ¡d oper action to recover upon an. account; and an account is the nature of the demand for money laid out and expended for another. We cannot, therefore, perceive the force of the objection to the plaintiffs’ right of recovery before the magistrate.

The judgment of the circuit court must be reversed with costs, and the cause remanded to that court for a new trial.

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

Related

Woodward v. Fels
64 Ky. 162 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Ky. 512, 4 Bibb 512, 1817 Ky. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-leatherer-kyctapp-1817.