Corley's ex'r v. Evans
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 27 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM SHELR'Í CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— Civil Code, secs. 359, 414. 1 Greenleaf’s Ev., sec. 82. 3 Marshall, 80 ; Gillasjne vs. Osborne. 3 Bibb, 26; Hart's heirs vs. Coram. 6 Johnson's R., 59 ; 3 Cowan, 611, 615. Munf., 437; Mason's dev. vs. Peters' adm'r. 1 Johnson, 66 ; 3 Johnson, 536 ; 3 Cowan, 623. 4 Cowan, 483, 492 ; Barn., 436. CITED— Civil Code, sec. 364. 17 B. Mon., 603 ; Freeman vs. Brenham. 2 Met., 297; Allard vs. Smith. 2 Met., 378;…
Read the full summary
CASE 27 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM SHELR'Í CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— Civil Code, secs. 359, 414. 1 Greenleaf’s Ev., sec. 82. 3 Marshall, 80 ; Gillasjne vs. Osborne. 3 Bibb, 26; Hart's heirs vs. Coram. 6 Johnson's R., 59 ; 3 Cowan, 611, 615. Munf., 437; Mason's dev. vs. Peters' adm'r. 1 Johnson, 66 ; 3 Johnson, 536 ; 3 Cowan, 623. 4 Cowan, 483, 492 ; Barn., 436. CITED— Civil Code, sec. 364. 17 B. Mon., 603 ; Freeman vs. Brenham. 2 Met., 297; Allard vs. Smith. 2 Met., 378; Tweedy vs. Commonwealth.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE R0BEB.TS0N
delivered the opinion op the court:
Whether right or wrong on the facts which may have been actually exhibited in the circuit court, we cannot judicially know. Those facts do not appear in the record in a cognizable form. The document professing to state them, and styled a bill of exceptions, does not appear to have been either signed or filed in court; but, as time was allowed for completing it in vacation, the presumption is, that it was prepared and signed extra-judicially out of court, and is, therefore, according to the Code of Practice, unauthorized and void.
We are,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hughes v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
- Bush v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1879