Buford's Adm'r v. Guthrie
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 44 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Appellant Ann O. Wallace, as devisee of Mary F. Buford, deceased, on the facts of this case, is entitled to a rescission of the contract made by Mary F. Buford to purchase the land in controversy.
Read the full summary
Case 44 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Appellant Ann O. Wallace, as devisee of Mary F. Buford, deceased, on the facts of this case, is entitled to a rescission of the contract made by Mary F. Buford to purchase the land in controversy. (Bullock v. Beemiss, 1 Mar. 434; Shackelford v. Handley’s ex’r, 1 Mar. 500; Searcy v. Hardin, 2 Mar. 41; Waggener v. Waggener, 3 Mon. 549; Cotton v. Ward, 3 Mon. 309; Simpson v. Hawkins & Cochran, 1 Dana, 305; Hynes v. Campbell, 6 Mon. 286; Bartlett v. Blanton, 4 J. J. Mar. 426; Watts v. Waddle, 1 McLean, 200; Watts v. Waddle, 6 Peters,…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE ELLIOTT
delivered the opinion op the court.
In the year 1850 Thomas Smith departed this life the owner of a large estate. By his will he directed that “all his children are to be made equal, including Lizzie Rowland as one equal with the rest, a sufficient sum to be invested in good securities for her and Elizabeth, my daughter, not to be used — the principal — until they arrive at twenty-six years of age, except the income or interest, say $20,000.”
George J. Rowland was the father of Lizzie Rowland, and after the death of Thomas Smith was appointed her guardian. On the 26th day of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Prather v. McDowellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- City of Louisville v. WoolleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1900
- Hackney v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1925