Thompson v. Bell

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Thompson v. Bell

2 Ky. Op. 77, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 401

DecidedSeptember 16, 1867

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ky. Op. 77 (Thompson v. Bell) 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

Thompson v. Bell, 2 Ky. Op. 77, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 401 (Ky. Ct. App. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court ry

Judge Hardin :

It sufficiently appears that the appellee was the owner and holder of the hill of exchange in controversy before and on the 15th day of December, 1861, when the same matured, and was payable in the city of New Orleans, and that by the Civil War then being waged between various Southern States, including Louisiana, and the Government of the Hnited States, and the States adhering thereto, including Kentucky, within which the appellee was, and resided, commercial intercourse between the State of Kentucky [78]*78an dthe city of New Orleans was.entirely suspended, and so continud to be from the maturity of said bill, within the month of July, 1862.

The holder of the bill being thus inadvertently prevented from causing it to be presented for payment, or protested, the failure to do so did not, in our opinion, operate to release the appellants from this liability as indorsers.

This conclusion, which renders the consideration of other questions unnecessary, seems to us to be in accordance with the decisions of this court in the cases of Gravis against Tilford, 2 Duvall, 108, and Bell, Berkley & Co. v. Hall’s Exrs., etc, in same volume, 292.

Wherefore, perceiving no available error in the judgment, the same is affirmed.

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

Opinion of the Court ry

Judge Hardin :

It sufficiently appears that the appellee was the owner and holder of the hill of exchange in controversy before and on the 15th day of December, 1861, when the same matured, and was payable in the city of New Orleans, and that by the Civil War then being waged between various Southern States, including Louisiana, and the Government of the Hnited States, and the States adhering thereto, including Kentucky, within which the appellee was, and resided, commercial intercourse between the State of Kentucky [78]*78an dthe city of New Orleans was.entirely suspended, and so continud to be from the maturity of said bill, within the month of July, 1862.

The holder of the bill being thus inadvertently prevented from causing it to be presented for payment, or protested, the failure to do so did not, in our opinion, operate to release the appellants from this liability as indorsers.

This conclusion, which renders the consideration of other questions unnecessary, seems to us to be in accordance with the decisions of this court in the cases of Gravis against Tilford, 2 Duvall, 108, and Bell, Berkley & Co. v. Hall’s Exrs., etc, in same volume, 292.

Wherefore, perceiving no available error in the judgment, the same is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ky. Op. 77, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-bell-kyctapp-1867.