Briggs v. Walker
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 57 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAR PROM JEPPEBSOÍÍ CIRCUIT COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION. 1. .The act of Congress, under which the money was recovered, was entitled! “an act for the relief of the estate of C. M. Briggs, deceased,” and not for the relief of Walker or Shotwell or any one else; the claim was barred by limitation long before the passage of that act, and the loyalty of the claimant was required to be established before the claim could be considered by the court of…
Read the full summary
Case 57 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAR PROM JEPPEBSOÍÍ CIRCUIT COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION. 1. .The act of Congress, under which the money was recovered, was entitled! “an act for the relief of the estate of C. M. Briggs, deceased,” and not for the relief of Walker or Shotwell or any one else; the claim was barred by limitation long before the passage of that act, and the loyalty of the claimant was required to be established before the claim could be considered by the court of claims. If it had been suspected that therei were any other ■beneficiaries under that act it would have certainly been…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG
delivered the opinion op the court.
The appellant, James A. Briggs, as executor of C. M. Briggs, filed bis .amended and supplemental answer and cross-petition in the suit of McLemore, 'Guardian v. Briggs, Executor, pending for the settlement of his intestate’s estate in the Jefferson Circuit Court, chancery division, in which he averred that since the last settlement of his accounts he had succeeded in collecting from the United States Government the “cotton claim” referred to in previous settlements; and that Amanda M. Walker, and the Ohio Valley Banking and Trust Company as…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Howe v. WinnCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912