Pawling's Adm'r. v. Sartain

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Pawling's Adm'r. v. Sartain

27 Ky. 238, 4 J.J. Marsh. 238, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 254

DecidedJune 30, 1830

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Ky. 238 (Pawling's Adm'r. v. Sartain) 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

Pawling's Adm'r. v. Sartain, 27 Ky. 238, 4 J.J. Marsh. 238, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 254 (Ky. Ct. App. 1830).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Robertson,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Pawling gave a promissory note, in New York, to C. and J. brush, for (i, payablé in six months. Sartain, as assignee, sued Pawling on the note in this state; and the circuit court, without the intervention of a jury, rendered judgment and six per cent, interest thereon from the day the bote became payable, until the judgment should be discharged.

This judgment cannot be sustained! Knowing the geography of the country, we know judicially, that New York is not in Kentucky. Interest must be regulated by the Hex loci contractus,” unless the contract was to be performed in some other state. It does not appear, that the money was to be paid in this case, in Kentucky. Wherefore, the defendant in error is entitled to interest, only according to the law of New York. This law is unknown to the courts of this state. What the law is, must be ascertained, like other facts, by the verdict of ajury, and then the interest, if allowable, must be assessed in damages; and. judgment cannot be rendered for interest, accruing after the verdict.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for proper proceedings.

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.

Pawling gave a promissory note, in New York, to C. and J. brush, for (i, payablé in six months. Sartain, as assignee, sued Pawling on the note in this state; and the circuit court, without the intervention of a jury, rendered judgment and six per cent, interest thereon from the day the bote became payable, until the judgment should be discharged.

This judgment cannot be sustained! Knowing the geography of the country, we know judicially, that New York is not in Kentucky. Interest must be regulated by the Hex loci contractus,” unless the contract was to be performed in some other state. It does not appear, that the money was to be paid in this case, in Kentucky. Wherefore, the defendant in error is entitled to interest, only according to the law of New York. This law is unknown to the courts of this state. What the law is, must be ascertained, like other facts, by the verdict of ajury, and then the interest, if allowable, must be assessed in damages; and. judgment cannot be rendered for interest, accruing after the verdict.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for proper proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Ky. 238, 4 J.J. Marsh. 238, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pawlings-admr-v-sartain-kyctapp-1830.