Manion v. Ohio Valley Railway Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 77 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT. Y. While at common law the guardian bad authority to compromise or compound a claim or demand of his ward, the provision of section 2030 of the Kentucky Statutes that he may do so “with leave of the Court,” was intended to and did abrogate that common-law right, and negatives his authority to do so, in any other way than as therein provided. (Hayes v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins.
Read the full summary
Case 77 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT. Y. While at common law the guardian bad authority to compromise or compound a claim or demand of his ward, the provision of section 2030 of the Kentucky Statutes that he may do so “with leave of the Court,” was intended to and did abrogate that common-law right, and negatives his authority to do so, in any other way than as therein provided. (Hayes v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 18 N. E. Rep., 322 (111.), and authorities there cited.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LANDES
delivered the opinion of the court.
The question raised in this case is whether the guardian of the infant appellant had the lawful power to hind him by compromising a claim for damages against the appellee, alleged to have been caused by reason of the negligence of the appellee. *505It seems that the infant appellant was in the service of the appellee company on the 27th day of July, 1892, in the capacity of watchman and fireman on one of its engines, and that on that day, at McLean Station, on Green River Island, between Henderson and Evansville, he stumbled over a pile of rocks and…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Bunnell v. BunnellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1901
- Ambrose v. GrazianiCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
- Nashville Lumber Co. v. BarefieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Carter Oil Co. v. FlemingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
- Jewell v. NuhnSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.