Thompson v. Varnin
This text of 27 Ky. 254 (Thompson v. Varnin) 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.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
The issues are not immaterial. If, as alleged in the pleas, the Jack, which was the only consideration of the note, was falsely and delusively represented by the vendors or either of them, and was of no value, the consideration may have failed. Whether the tender was made in a reasonable time or not, is not now material; the replications virtually admit that it was made in sufficient time. In such a case a scienter is not indispensable.
But the court erred in excluding the testimony of Hedger. Ho was a competent witness. His credibility belonged to the consideration of the jury.
Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for anew trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
27 Ky. 254, 4 J.J. Marsh. 254, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-varnin-kyctapp-1830.