Gross v. Eddinger
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 24 — PETITION EQUITY APPEALS PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. The money with which Mrs. Gross began business was saved from time-to time in small amounts, out of money given to her by her husband for her personal expenses, and was, therefore, her separate estate, (Story’s Equity, vol. 2, section 1375a.) To create a separate estate, no writing or particular form is necessary.
Read the full summary
Case 24 — PETITION EQUITY APPEALS PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. The money with which Mrs. Gross began business was saved from time-to time in small amounts, out of money given to her by her husband for her personal expenses, and was, therefore, her separate estate, (Story’s Equity, vol. 2, section 1375a.) To create a separate estate, no writing or particular form is necessary. (McOlanahan v. Beasley, 17 B. Mon., 113; Shackleford v. Collins, 6 Bush, 157 ; Walton v. Broadus, 6 Bush, 329.) Personalty given or. sold by husband to wife makes the husband trustee for his wife, he holding the…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.'
Appellees instituted their, respective actions in the Louisville chancery court for the purpose of- setting aside a conveyance of a house and lot to appellant M. E. Gross, the wife, and subjecting it to the satisfaction of their debts against Geo. S. Gross, the husband'. And the two cases being tried together, judgment was rendered in favor of each of the plaintiffs for a sale of the property as prayed for in their petitions. The action of appellees Eddinger & Bro. was upon a judgment rendered in their favor against Geo. S. Gross, October, 1880,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Patton's Exr. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Leitchfield Milling Company v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
- Ford Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. CurdCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Big Plum Creek Turnpike Co. v. Walker & Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911