Case Name: H. V. Puthuff v. Robt. Howe
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1882-04-06
Citations: 11 Ky. Op. 599
Docket Number: 
Parties: H. V. Puthuff v. Robt. Howe.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Opinions, containing the unreported opinions of the Court of Appeals
Volume: 11
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
H. V. Puthuff v. Robt. Howe.
[Abstract Kentucky Law Reporter, Vol. 3-758.]
Diligence by Assignee of Note.
A petition is -bad which merely alleges that in due time suit was instituted by the assignee on the note assigned and a judgment recovered and in due time an execution issued and was returned “no property found.” What is due time is a question of law, and the plaintiff must allege facts to enable the court to determine what diligence was exercised by the assignee in his effort to collect the note.
APPEAL FROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT.
April 6, 1882.
Roe & Roe, for appellant.
T. H. Paynter, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Judge Pryor :
The petition is bad. It is by the assignee against the assignor to recover by reason of the insolvency of the debtor. It is alleged that in due time suit was instituted by the assignee on the note assigned and a judgment recovered, and in due time an execution was issued and returned "no property found." "What is due time" is a question of law and the plaintiff should have alleged the facts to enable the court to determine what diligence had been exercised by the assignee in the effort to collect the note.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.