65 Ky. 103 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1867
delivered the opinion oe the court:
The appellants sued the appellee on the following check drawn at Corinth, Mississippi:
“ April 12th, 1862.
“Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, pay to Smith & Campbell, or order, nineteen hundred and twenty-five dollars. $1,925.
“ D. W. Jones.”
On which the following credit is indorsed :
“ Received on this check one hundred and twenty-five dollars, April 15th, 1862.
“ Smith & Campbell.”
The petition alleged that the consideration of the check was an equivalent loan of money, and that the check was presented at the said bank on the 13th of January, 1863, for payment, and was protested because the drawer had no funds in bank.
The appellee’s answer alleged that, as mere friend and gratuitous bailee of the appellants, he had received from them in the city of Orleans about eight thousand dollars in Confederaté bonds on trust, to exchange them for gold; that, having exchanged all except one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five dollars, and transmitted the gold to the appellants, he drew the check for that balance, which the parties intended as a mere transfer or restoration to the appellants of that residual amount of these Confederate bonds remaining unexchanged—
McFerrin, a witness for the appellants, proved a conversation between the appellee and himself, as agent for the appellants, in which the appellee made statements substantially corresponding with all the essential allegations in his answer, except’the exchairge of the bonds for Bullock’s draft; and, as the whole conversation is evidence, as well statements as admissions, those statements were competent testimony.
And other witnesses testified that, until the capture of Orleans early in May, 1862, the appellants, who were within the Confederate lines, and friendly to the Confederate cause, might have safely gone from Corinth, or an intermediate point, to Orleans, in forty-eight hours — those places and all the interjacent country being, until the capture of the city, in the possession of the Confederate army.
On these facts the circuit court dismissed the petition, and we cannot reverse that judgment.
The resulting loss does not appear to be ascribable to the culpable negligence of the appellee, who seems to have observed good faith, and, as a bailee without any compensation, was responsible only for gross negligence
As it appears to this court, from the foregoing consideration of facts and principles, that the appellants, by their own conduct, have exonerated the appellee from all liability to them on his check, the judgment of the circuit court dismissing their petition is affirmed