Penn v. Young
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 36—PETITION ORDINARY— APPEAL PROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT. CITED Revised Statutes, 2 Stanton, page 8. 2Bush, 115, Bowen v. Sebree and wife. 8 Bush, 172, Uhrig v. Horstman & Sons. 7 B. Mon. 443, Basham v. Chamberlain. 2 Met. 510, Tinsley and wife v. Roll. 2 Story’s Equity, sections 1381, 1383. 2 Met. 508, Johnston v. Ferguson. 6 Bush, 329, Waitón v. Broaddus. 4 Met. 59, Ward v. Grotty. 4 Met. 87, Maraman’s adm’r v. Maraman. 3 Bush, 156, Bryant v. Bryant. 6 Bush, 150,…
Read the full summary
Case 36—PETITION ORDINARY— APPEAL PROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT. CITED Revised Statutes, 2 Stanton, page 8. 2Bush, 115, Bowen v. Sebree and wife. 8 Bush, 172, Uhrig v. Horstman & Sons. 7 B. Mon. 443, Basham v. Chamberlain. 2 Met. 510, Tinsley and wife v. Roll. 2 Story’s Equity, sections 1381, 1383. 2 Met. 508, Johnston v. Ferguson. 6 Bush, 329, Waitón v. Broaddus. 4 Met. 59, Ward v. Grotty. 4 Met. 87, Maraman’s adm’r v. Maraman. 3 Bush, 156, Bryant v. Bryant. 6 Bush, 150, Shackleford v. Collier. 8 Bush, 262, Hiram (of color) v. Griffin. 2 Bacon’s Abridgment. 4 Dana, 334. 14 B. Mon. 198, Petty…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LINDSAY
delivered the opinion oe the court.
A husband may permit his wife to set apart the proceeds of her general estate to her own separate and exclusive use; but his intention to do so must be manifested by a distinct act, unequivocal in its nature, and inconsistent with the idea that he reserves the right in any possible contingency to assert his claim as husband to such estate.
If a husband desires to convert the wife’s earnings as such into separate estate, to be used by her to his exclusion, he must avail himself of the provisions of the statutes authorizing courts of equity to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Uhrig v. HorstmanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brinkley v. HughesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1885
- Woodward v. MiddletonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877