Legal Opinion

Peterson v. Poignard

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided January 31, 1847PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Chancery. Case 75. Apfeal from the Louisville Chancery Court.

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Marshall

It being sufficiently certain, upon the evidence, that Peterson has paid various debts which Monroe was bound to pay, and that he is entitled to indemnity from Monroe’s estate, to the extent of several thousand dollars, even if he were charged with the $3,000, the recited consideration of his conveyance to Atherson, of the one half of the Hindostán Mill property, it is not deemed necessary to go into any discussion or particular statement of his claims on this account. His payments to Butler’s administrators, Hill, the Bank of the United States, Hughes, and Cordis, exceed $7,000, besides…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. West v. W. A. McLaughlin & Co.'s TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908
  2. Equitable Life Assurance So., U. S. v. WinnCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
  3. Beugnot v. TremouletSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1903

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API