Hicks & Gill v. Doty
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 32 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM SAEEAED CIRCUIT COUET, CITED— 14 B. Mon., 86; Hill vs. Barrett. 14 B. Mon., 254; Collins vs. Blackhurn. 2 Met., 89; Riggs, <$• 7 J. J. M., 216; Wood 8f Harden vs. Kendell, fyc. 2 Blackstone, 305. Act of 1798, B. 4- M.,p. 150. Revised Statutes, sec. 6, chap. 22. 2 Bibb, 233 ; Bowman vs. Frooman. 3 Bibb, 441; Crag vs. Miller.' 5 J. J. M., 42-3 ; Boyd vs. Ramsey. 7 B. Mon., 547 ; White vs. Buck. 2 Met., 128; Lytle vs. Lytle.
Read the full summary
CASE 32 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM SAEEAED CIRCUIT COUET, CITED— 14 B. Mon., 86; Hill vs. Barrett. 14 B. Mon., 254; Collins vs. Blackhurn. 2 Met., 89; Riggs, <$• 7 J. J. M., 216; Wood 8f Harden vs. Kendell, fyc. 2 Blackstone, 305. Act of 1798, B. 4- M.,p. 150. Revised Statutes, sec. 6, chap. 22. 2 Bibb, 233 ; Bowman vs. Frooman. 3 Bibb, 441; Crag vs. Miller.' 5 J. J. M., 42-3 ; Boyd vs. Ramsey. 7 B. Mon., 547 ; White vs. Buck. 2 Met., 128; Lytle vs. Lytle. CITED— 2 Parsons on Contracts, 29.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Williams
The appellants leased a house and lot from J. H. West, and entered into a written contract agreeing to pay therefor one hundred and twenty-five dollar's, January 1, 1868, and to do certain improvements therein specified, West reserving the use of the stable and its appurtenances then on the lot, and to have certain specified improvements made. West assigned said covenant to Bush, who assigned it to Doty, the appellee, by written -indorsements. Doty, as assignee, brought suit in his own name without joining West as co-plaintiff, or making him a defendant, describing it as a promissory note for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lytle v. LytleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Clark's heirs v. LuskCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
- Marcum v. HerefordCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1839
3Cited by1 opinion
- P. A. Starck Piano Co. v. HardinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933