Fain v. Turner's Administrator
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Gash 105 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAR PROM GARRART) CIRCUIT COURT. 1. There was a sufficient consideration to uphold the mother’s promise. 2. The claims of appellants are not within the provision of section 4 of .the statute of frauds. (Creel v. Ball & Co.. 2 J. J. Mar., 316; Day w. Oloe, 4 Bush, 564; Hodgkins v. Jackson, 7 Bush, 343.) Nor are they within the denunciation of section 7 of the statute ■•against contracts not to be performed within a year.
Read the full summary
Gash 105 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAR PROM GARRART) CIRCUIT COURT. 1. There was a sufficient consideration to uphold the mother’s promise. 2. The claims of appellants are not within the provision of section 4 of .the statute of frauds. (Creel v. Ball & Co.. 2 J. J. Mar., 316; Day w. Oloe, 4 Bush, 564; Hodgkins v. Jackson, 7 Bush, 343.) Nor are they within the denunciation of section 7 of the statute ■•against contracts not to be performed within a year. (Walker v. Johnson, 96 U. S., 424; Myles’ Ex’rs, &c., v. Myles, 6 Bush, 237.) 1. Every fact touching the validity of the claim which, in a suit…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPIHIOS OE THE COURT.
W. IT. Pain, administrator, brought an action to settle and distribute the estate of Rolinda Turner, making her heirs-at-law defendants, two of whom, Eliza J. McDonald and Mary E. Pain, filed claims which were for the same amount and of the same character. Neither of the claims was formally pleaded, but there'was a statement of the nature and cause of each, and a prayer that they be filed and allowed. It was, therefore, probably not improper to determine, on the demurrer filed by the other heirs, as the lower court did do, whether the statements,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Myles's Executors & Devisees v. MylesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1869
- Howard's Administrator v. BurgenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1836
- Leach v. Kendall's AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877
- Day v. CloeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1868
3Cited by9 opinions
- East Tennessee Telephone Co. v. Paris Electric Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
- Sellars v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Sullivan v. SullivanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906
- Frankfort & Cincinnati Railway Co. v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Waggener v. Howsley's AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.