Clark's heirs v. Lusk
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 17 APPEAL PROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The court erred in allowing, out of the estate, the fees of $200 to Lusk and Turner, and in the allowance of $125 to Lusk, as administrator, for any supposed risk or trouble about the slaves. 1. The court of appeals have no jurisdiction of the case.
Read the full summary
CASE 17 APPEAL PROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The court erred in allowing, out of the estate, the fees of $200 to Lusk and Turner, and in the allowance of $125 to Lusk, as administrator, for any supposed risk or trouble about the slaves. 1. The court of appeals have no jurisdiction of the case. (Civil Code, sections 15, 16, 20, 21, 520; Rev. Stat., p. 237, suh-div. 9 ; 12 B. Mon., 510.) 2. Turner was not a party to the appeal in the circuit court, and cannot be made a party to this appeal. 3. The allowance to the administrator, and the…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE STITES
delivered the otinion op the court:
The first question arising in this case relates to the jurisdiction of this court over the judgment appealed from.
The judgment is an affirmance by the circuit court of Gar-rard county of an order of the county court making a settlement of the accounts of an administrator. It is contended that over such judgment this court has no jurisdiction, and in support of this position we are referred to the Civil Code, (section 16.) '
Unless the exceptions enumerated in that section embrace judgments of this kind, no doubt is entertained but that it comes…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hicks & Gill v. DotyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1868