West v. M'Cord

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

West v. M'Cord

27 Ky. 173, 4 J.J. Marsh. 173, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 228

DecidedJune 24, 1830

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Ky. 173 (West v. M'Cord) 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

West v. M'Cord, 27 Ky. 173, 4 J.J. Marsh. 173, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 228 (Ky. Ct. App. 1830).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Ukderwoov,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon a careful examination of the record, in this case, we perceive no error. The justice of the peace had jurisdiction. The application to file the plea of the statute of limitations was addressed to the discretion of the court. We shall not interfere with it, because there is no evidence before us, showing that it was abused. J he date of the note, as set out jn the statement, is 1825. The note upon its face, as copied into the record, seems to bear date in 1821. The clerk in copying,has intended to give a fac simile of the last figure, from which it is not clear, whether it [174]*174was made for a 1 or a 5. The jury must have taken it, for a 5, as is proved by the interest allowed. Although the note was payable in common wealth's paper; it was correct to allow interest, because the note contains an express promise to pay interest upon its face.

Mills and Brown, for plaintiff; Benny, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

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

Judge Ukderwoov,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon a careful examination of the record, in this case, we perceive no error. The justice of the peace had jurisdiction. The application to file the plea of the statute of limitations was addressed to the discretion of the court. We shall not interfere with it, because there is no evidence before us, showing that it was abused. J he date of the note, as set out jn the statement, is 1825. The note upon its face, as copied into the record, seems to bear date in 1821. The clerk in copying,has intended to give a fac simile of the last figure, from which it is not clear, whether it [174]*174was made for a 1 or a 5. The jury must have taken it, for a 5, as is proved by the interest allowed. Although the note was payable in common wealth's paper; it was correct to allow interest, because the note contains an express promise to pay interest upon its face.

Mills and Brown, for plaintiff; Benny, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Ky. 173, 4 J.J. Marsh. 173, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-mcord-kyctapp-1830.