Case Name: Murphy & McCalister v. J. S. Hughes' Admr. et al.
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1868-12-19
Citations: 2 Ky. Op. 667
Docket Number: 
Parties: Murphy & McCalister v. J. S. Hughes’ Admr. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Opinions, containing the unreported opinions of the Court of Appeals
Volume: 2
Pages: 667–667

Head Matter:
Murphy & McCalister v. J. S. Hughes’ Admr. et al.
Bills and Notes — Assignment without Recourse.
A note, taken up by a volunteer, though assigned to him without recourse, is held to be discharged, as against the obligor, in a suit to enforce its collection.
Bills and Notes — Consideration.
Payment by appellants, of a note of another, against whom suit had been thréatened, where he had promised to renew with appellants, as sureties, held to be a binding consideration, in suit to recover from the payee.
APPEAL PROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT.
December 19, 1868.
Dunlap, for appellant.
Hill & Alcorn, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion op the Court by
Judge Robertson :
The testimony authorized these deductions: 1, that Hughes' administrator and the administrator of Wallace were anxious to have the note now sued on paid or sued on without delay. Second, that John S. Hughes, as principal obligor, to avoid a suit, promised to pay the note by the substitution of his own note with the appellants as his sureties. Third, that the appellants, acquainted with that arrangement, and informed by Wallace's administrator that unless the promised substitution should, at once, be made, suit would be brought on the note without any further delay, executed their own negotiable note, in the absence of J. S. Hughes, for effectuating his arrangement and preventing the threatened suit and saving the credit of their partner. Fourth, that the note was thus paid, and assigned (without recourse) to them, merely as evidence against J. ¡3. Hughes that they had paid it for him. And these authorized deductions show a binding consideration, and sustain the verdict to the effect that the noted sued on had been thus discharged.
And, therefore, there being no error in instructions, the judgment is affirmed.