Tillman v. Otter
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 102 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE LAW AND EQUITY COURT. 1. As the plaintiff, Otter, is suing for the office, and the defendant, Tillman, is in possession, the burden of x>roof is on Otter to establisli liis own title ; and, as lie failed to do so, defendant is not called on to show defendant’s title.
Read the full summary
Case 102 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE LAW AND EQUITY COURT. 1. As the plaintiff, Otter, is suing for the office, and the defendant, Tillman, is in possession, the burden of x>roof is on Otter to establisli liis own title ; and, as lie failed to do so, defendant is not called on to show defendant’s title. (Code, sec. 483; Justices V. liar-court, 4 B. Mon., 501; Lehman v. Hinton, 1 Duv., 42; Justices v. Clark, 1 Mon., 86; Toney v. Harris, 85 Ky., 464; McCune v. Weller, 11 Cal., 68.) 2. The Act creating the Sinking Fund Commissioners, and the city ordinance, both provided that…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion of the court.
The controversy in this case is over the office of a commissioner of the sinking fund of the City of Louisville. The plaintiff, John J. Otter, who is the appellee in this court, claims to have derived title to the office by an election held by the general council of the city on the 25th ■of October, 1889, and the defendant, Vm. Tillman, claims his title under an election by the commissioners of the linking fund on the 12th of November following.
The provision of the Act in relation to the sinking fund authorizing the election reads as follows: “…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Hermann v. LampeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Wilson v. TyeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- Nelson v. SneedTennessee Supreme Court · 1903
- Dorain v. WaltersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- Langston v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1974
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.