Myers v. Stephens

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Myers v. Stephens

3 Ky. Op. 75, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 288

DecidedJanuary 7, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ky. Op. 75 (Myers v. Stephens) 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

Myers v. Stephens, 3 Ky. Op. 75, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 288 (Ky. Ct. App. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

If, as is insisted for the appellant, the illegality of the original transaction in which the note to Wyatt was given, might have constituted a bar to the action on the note, or even have been sufficient to prevent a recovery by one of the obligor’s for contribution, if he had paid the note, yet when the appellant and Stephens had permitted a judgment to be rendered on the note by Wyatt’s assignee and taken on themselves a new obligation by replevying the judgment, they were both legally bound to pay [76]*76the debt and liable for .contribution as between themselves (Minus v. Johnson, etc., 1 Duvall, 171).

Hazlerigg & Winn, for appellant. Turner, for appellee.

The instruction which the court gave the jury, being in conformity with this view, seems to us to have presented the law of the case.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

If, as is insisted for the appellant, the illegality of the original transaction in which the note to Wyatt was given, might have constituted a bar to the action on the note, or even have been sufficient to prevent a recovery by one of the obligor’s for contribution, if he had paid the note, yet when the appellant and Stephens had permitted a judgment to be rendered on the note by Wyatt’s assignee and taken on themselves a new obligation by replevying the judgment, they were both legally bound to pay [76]*76the debt and liable for .contribution as between themselves (Minus v. Johnson, etc., 1 Duvall, 171).

Hazlerigg & Winn, for appellant. Turner, for appellee.

The instruction which the court gave the jury, being in conformity with this view, seems to us to have presented the law of the case.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ky. Op. 75, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-stephens-kyctapp-1869.