Beaumont v. Miller
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 16—PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. - 1. It was not necessary to aver that Miller had received property by his marrige; if he had set up the fact in his answer that he had received nothing by his marriage, the plaintiff was still entitled to a judgment against him, to be levied of any property he might afterwards receive by his wife. 2. That the wife married after the execution of the note, did not…
Read the full summary
CASE 16—PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. - 1. It was not necessary to aver that Miller had received property by his marrige; if he had set up the fact in his answer that he had received nothing by his marriage, the plaintiff was still entitled to a judgment against him, to be levied of any property he might afterwards receive by his wife. 2. That the wife married after the execution of the note, did not protect her from being sued. {Rev. Stat., sub-sec. 1 of sec. 1, art. 2, chap. 47, p. 388.) See, also, Sweeny vs. Smith,…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE STITES
delivered the opinion of the court:
This action was brought by the holder against the makers of a promissory note and the husband of one of the makers, who was a feme sole when she executed the note, but had subsequently intermarried, and was covert when the suit began.
The petition sets forth the note, avers by whpm and when it was made, states the fact of the subsequent intermarriage of one of the makers, and makes the husband a co-defendant. It also avers the non-payment of the note, and prays judgment, &c. No averment is made, however, that the husband acquired any property by…
2Cited by2 opinions
- DeLand v. BlynnCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1874
- Medley v. TandyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887