Randolph v. Lampkin
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 87 — CONTESTED WILL APPEAL FROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The court erred in permitting a part of the- heirs to- prosecute the appeal for all. As the heirs were only sixteen in number, they were not so numerous that it was impracticable to bring them all before-the court.
Read the full summary
Case 87 — CONTESTED WILL APPEAL FROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The court erred in permitting a part of the- heirs to- prosecute the appeal for all. As the heirs were only sixteen in number, they were not so numerous that it was impracticable to bring them all before-the court. (Hendrix, &c., v. Money, &e., I Bush, 307; Kirk v. Young, 2 Abb., 453; Civil Code of Practice, see. 25.) 2. It was error to admit testimony tending to show that tile testator was not the owner of the property which he attempted to devise, as that question was not in issue. 3. The declaration of the testator that he was…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OE THE COURT.
Lewis W. Lampkin. Sr., died March 27, 1882, about eighty-six years old, leaving a paper purporting to be *554his last will, by which was devised to Catherine M. Gordon and her children all his real and personal ■estate, except thirty acres of land given to Lewis Washington, and one and one-half acres to Jefferson Blackwell; and this is an appeal by the first mentioned devisees and propounders from a judgment rendered in pursuance of verdict of the jury finding, in substance, the paper in question to be his last will, so far as it makes provision for…
2Cited by29 opinions
- Horning v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Orr v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1958
- State v. . MatthewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- McPeak v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Hildreth v. HildrethCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.