Moore v. Baker
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 94-PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM BREATHITT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 1. Where an infant repudiates his former contract by a subsequent conveyance it is not necessary to place the first purchaser in statu quo in order to make his last conveyance effectual.
Read the full summary
Case 94-PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM BREATHITT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 1. Where an infant repudiates his former contract by a subsequent conveyance it is not necessary to place the first purchaser in statu quo in order to make his last conveyance effectual. (Vallandingham v. Johnson, 85 Ky., 288; Story on Contracts, sec. 60.) 2. In the absence of any written contract, either filed or referred to, the presumption arises that the contract with James Moore was by parol, and if so it must be rescinded even if the parties can not be placed in statu quo. (Holtzclaw v. Blackberry, 9 Bush, 44.) 3. The…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OE THE COURT.
Appellant, Daniel Moore, brought this action for division of a tract of land, and allotment to him of one-fourth thereof, claimed under sale and conveyance by James Moore, three-fourths having been purchased from the other joint tenants by defendant Baker, now appellee. By an amended petition, James Moore was joined as plaintiff in the action, and it was alleged he, while an infant, had attempted to sell the same undivided fourth of the land to the defendant, but got nothing therefor, and that he had, after arriving to the age of twenty-one years,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barret v. CoburnCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1861
3Cited by11 opinions
- New Domain Oil & Gas Co. v. McKinneyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
- Stephenson Lumber Co. v. HurstCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
- Burke v. ScharfNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
- Ison v. CornettCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Etchen v. CheneyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.