Marsh v. Alford
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 21 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— 17 B. Mon., 555; Burgen vs. Forsythe. 2 Met., 508 and 521. 2 Met., 253 ; Pell vs. Cole. 3 Met., 334, 335; Marshall vs. Miller. 15 B. Mon., 234; McMillen vs. L. R. R. Go. 16 B. Mon., 439; Civil Code, secs. 153, 161, and notes. MS. Opn., Botts Sf Barbour vs. Moss’s adm’r, Myers’ note, sec. 161. 1 Handy, 434; Evans vs. Hall.
Read the full summary
CASE 21 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— 17 B. Mon., 555; Burgen vs. Forsythe. 2 Met., 508 and 521. 2 Met., 253 ; Pell vs. Cole. 3 Met., 334, 335; Marshall vs. Miller. 15 B. Mon., 234; McMillen vs. L. R. R. Go. 16 B. Mon., 439; Civil Code, secs. 153, 161, and notes. MS. Opn., Botts Sf Barbour vs. Moss’s adm’r, Myers’ note, sec. 161. 1 Handy, 434; Evans vs. Hall. CITED— Civil Code, sec. 161. Homestead Act, Myers’ Sup.,pp. 714, 715. ■18 B. Mon., 306; Daniel vs. Robinson. 2 Met.,,252; Pell vs. Cole.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HARDIN
delivered the opinion of the court:
The appellant, who was the plaintiff in this action, exhibited with his petition a promissory note, executed by the appellees, J. P. Alford and Martha C. Alford, his wife, for ninety dollars and forty cents, dated the 6th day of November, 1866, and payable one day thereafter, to S. F. Ames, who assigned it to the plaintiff, and sought to recover a judgment, subjecting to his claim a house and lot of Mrs. Alford’s, on the alleged ground that the consideration of the note was lumber sold and furnished to the defendants by Ames, to be used in…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bright v. First National BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899