Handley v. Cunningham's trustee
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 42 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM LARUE CIRCUIT COURT. CITED Session Acts, 1870-71, page 62. 1Bush, 473. 1 Met. 548. 13 B. Mon. 461. CITED Met. 53, Mallory & Co. v. Hiles. 2Mar. 339, Breckinridge v. Brooks. 2 B. Mon. 336, Bodes v. Blythe. 3 Mar. 390, Brown v. Heard. 1 J. J. Mar. 276, Lillard v. Field. 1 J. J. Mar. 10, Noland v. Johnson. 3 Mar. 174, Surlott v. Pratt. 11 Bush, 393, Smith v. Young, &e.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Lindsay
As the object of this action is to sell estate devised to Clarissa Handley and others, she has the right, without first calling upon the administrator of the testator’s estate to act, to demand that the claim shall be purged of usurious interest; and she may make this defense without showing that she has qualified as guardian for her co-devisees, as required by Handley’s will. That is a question between her and her wards, with which the appellees have nothing to do.
The notes were executed on the 1st day of September, 1871. They were intended' to secure the payment of ten per centum interest…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Batman v. MegowanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- White v. CrutcherCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1866
3Cited by8 opinions
- Meridian Life Insurance v. MilamCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Newton v. OgdenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- Commonwealth v. SheltonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1896
- Texas Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
- Commonwealth v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.