Moxley's administrators v. Moxley
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 67 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT. cited 1 Parsons on Contracts, p. 403; Chitty, p. 34; Stephens on Pleading, 252, et seq.; 1 Grcenleaf, sec. 108. cited 2 Story's Equity, secs. 1106, 1107, and authority cited in note 1; Wilcox vs. Wilcox, 2 Vern. Ch'y Rep., case 506; Moxley vs. Moxley, MS. opin. January, 1857; 2 Bla.
Read the full summary
CASE 67 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT. cited 1 Parsons on Contracts, p. 403; Chitty, p. 34; Stephens on Pleading, 252, et seq.; 1 Grcenleaf, sec. 108. cited 2 Story's Equity, secs. 1106, 1107, and authority cited in note 1; Wilcox vs. Wilcox, 2 Vern. Ch'y Rep., case 506; Moxley vs. Moxley, MS. opin. January, 1857; 2 Bla. Com., p. 379; Chitty on Contracts, 5th Am. ed., pp. 73, 74, and note; 1 Met., 79. cited Civil Code, sec. 161; 1 Met., 553. cited 1 Met., 557.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE DUVALL
delivered the opinion of the court:
The only question we shall deem it important to consider, as the case is now presented, is that which arises on the demurrer to the amended petition.
In that amendment it is alleged, in substance, that on the-day of-■, 1851, the testator, in his lifetime, proposed to plaintiff that if he, the plaintiff, would quit his business and trade of carpenter, and undertaker of carpenter’s work, and come and live with the testator on his farm, that he would do as well or better for the plaintiff than the plaintiff was doing or could do by his said trade of…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Leonard v. NyeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Colwell v. ColwellOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- Giltner v. McCombs Producing & Refining Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1921
- Heller v. FergusonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Bard v. Bd. Drainage Commrs. of Hickman CountyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.