Kirkham v. Malone

I am firmly convinced that the result reached by the majority is not in accord with equity or the law. As I understand that opinion it is based principally on two things: (1) that Kirkham, and not the appellees, paid the $2,500.00 in question to Charles Dittman and his wife, and (2) that the Chancellor’s finding is not supported by clear and convincing testimony. My reasons for dissenting could not be adequately expressed without reviewing the case in its entirety.

Pleadings. On April 30, 1959 appellees filed a verified complaint which in all material parts states: On August 20,1957 appellees…