Mason v. Biddle

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Mason v. Biddle

29 Ky. 30, 6 J.J. Marsh. 30, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 118

DecidedApril 27, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ky. 30 (Mason v. Biddle) 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

Mason v. Biddle, 29 Ky. 30, 6 J.J. Marsh. 30, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 118 (Ky. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the court.

On a covenant, dated in May 1821, for the payment of ten thousand three hundred and forty ^°^ars twenty-one cents, in three instalments, to be discharged in the currency generally receivable at the time of payment, in the usual course of business, itv state of Kentucky;” a verdict and judgment were rendered, in March, 1829, for fifteen thousand two hundred and forty-one dollars thirty-one cents, “in n°fes °f the Bank of the Commonwealth, and in notes on the Bank of Kentucky;” to reverse which, the defendants in the circuit court prosecute this writ of error

The legal measure of damages, was the value of ^le severaf instalments at the times when they became due. Although the covenant was not for gold or silver, nevertheless the creditor had no right to a judgment for any thing but the specie value of the currency « receivable, at the time of payment, in the [31]*31usual course of business,” because the endorsement act of 1824* does not apply to the case.

Hoggin, Denny and Triplett, for plaintiffs; Combs and Chinn, for defendant.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded fefr a new irlal.

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.

On a covenant, dated in May 1821, for the payment of ten thousand three hundred and forty ^°^ars twenty-one cents, in three instalments, to be discharged in the currency generally receivable at the time of payment, in the usual course of business, itv state of Kentucky;” a verdict and judgment were rendered, in March, 1829, for fifteen thousand two hundred and forty-one dollars thirty-one cents, “in n°fes °f the Bank of the Commonwealth, and in notes on the Bank of Kentucky;” to reverse which, the defendants in the circuit court prosecute this writ of error

The legal measure of damages, was the value of ^le severaf instalments at the times when they became due. Although the covenant was not for gold or silver, nevertheless the creditor had no right to a judgment for any thing but the specie value of the currency « receivable, at the time of payment, in the [31]*31usual course of business,” because the endorsement act of 1824* does not apply to the case.

Hoggin, Denny and Triplett, for plaintiffs; Combs and Chinn, for defendant.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded fefr a new irlal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ky. 30, 6 J.J. Marsh. 30, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-biddle-kyctapp-1831.