Hodges v. Holeman

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Hodges v. Holeman

32 Ky. 396, 2 Dana 396, 1834 Ky. LEXIS 111

DecidedNovember 6, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Ky. 396 (Hodges v. Holeman) 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

Hodges v. Holeman, 32 Ky. 396, 2 Dana 396, 1834 Ky. LEXIS 111 (Ky. Ct. App. 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court..

As, bv the terms of the contract, the note, o» which this suit is brought, was not to payable man should remove all incumbrances on his share of • the Commentator office, not only the removal of all such'incumbrances, but notice, by Holeman to Hodges, of that fact was indispensable to the right to maintain a ..__, ' suit on note.

A deed of trust to Blanton and Major, for the benefit of the Bank of Kentucky, does not appear to have been effectually released until the year 1831 ; and no sufiicient notice to Hodges of any release has been proved.. on]y notice which was proved, was that given by Swigert, of a release by the Bank, in 1829. But, not onb *s re^ea5e insufficient, but Swigert being a stranger to the contract between these parties, and not appearing to-have- acted as Holeman’s agent, or at his request, nothing which he said to Hodges, could be deemed such a notice as he had a right to require,

But nevertheless, judgment was rendered against Hodges, for the principal sum and the legal interest from the year 1829; which was, of course, erroneous,

Wherefore, the judgment must be reversed,, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court..

As, bv the terms of the contract, the note, o» which this suit is brought, was not to payable man should remove all incumbrances on his share of • the Commentator office, not only the removal of all such'incumbrances, but notice, by Holeman to Hodges, of that fact was indispensable to the right to maintain a ..__, ' suit on note.

A deed of trust to Blanton and Major, for the benefit of the Bank of Kentucky, does not appear to have been effectually released until the year 1831 ; and no sufiicient notice to Hodges of any release has been proved.. on]y notice which was proved, was that given by Swigert, of a release by the Bank, in 1829. But, not onb *s re^ea5e insufficient, but Swigert being a stranger to the contract between these parties, and not appearing to-have- acted as Holeman’s agent, or at his request, nothing which he said to Hodges, could be deemed such a notice as he had a right to require,

But nevertheless, judgment was rendered against Hodges, for the principal sum and the legal interest from the year 1829; which was, of course, erroneous,

Wherefore, the judgment must be reversed,, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Ky. 396, 2 Dana 396, 1834 Ky. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-v-holeman-kyctapp-1834.