Hochensmith v. Warren

6 Ky. Op. 196, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 501
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedDecember 6, 1872
StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ky. Op. 196 (Hochensmith v. Warren) 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
Hochensmith v. Warren, 6 Ky. Op. 196, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 501 (Ky. Ct. App. 1872).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The obligation by the appellee, Warren, was a direct undertaking by him to pay the appellant whatever sum of money might be due the latter upon settlement with Sebree.

The inducement or consideration, even if required, for the execution of the writing by the appellee, is fully set forth, and his undertaking to pay, places him in default upon his failure to pay the sum found due on the settlement.

If the .principal can be made liable without notice the surety can also, and the principal certainly is presumed to know the amount of the indebtedness and the result of the arbitration. It was the duty of Warren to have derived his information from Sebree and not from the appellant.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Lowe v. Beckwith, 14 B. Monroe 150.

-, for appellee.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Ky. Op. 196, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hochensmith-v-warren-kyctapp-1872.