Brown v. Vancleave
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 54 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. A judgment for a specific sum, reserving the right to enforce it by the sale of specific property, if not paid within a given time, is a final judgment from which an appeal will lie.
Read the full summary
Case 54 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. A judgment for a specific sum, reserving the right to enforce it by the sale of specific property, if not paid within a given time, is a final judgment from which an appeal will lie. (Helm v. Short, 7 Bush, 625; M. & L. R. R. Oo. v. Punnet, 15 B. M.; Applegate v. Apple-gate, 4 Met., 236; Benton v. Campbell, 2 Dana, 421; Hay v. Hardin, 13 Bush, 346; Robinson v. Scott, 3 Litt., 233.) 2. A cross-appeal can only be entertained to correct errors in the judgment appealed from or interlocutory orders leading up to it. (Field v.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion op the court.
Tlie appellee brought suit in the Louisville Chancery Court against the firm of Noland, Price & Co., the appellant, Brown, being a member of the firm, on two promissory notes for two thousand dollars each, to each of which the name of said firm was signed.
The defendants were proceeded against as non-residents, and an attachment was obtained against them, which was levied upon thirty shares of stock as the property of the- appellant, Brown. Afterwards, appellant, Brown, appeared and filed his answer, in which he pleaded that the notes were given…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Phelps v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1901
- Schmidt v. Louisville, Cincinnati & Lexington Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1896
- Webb Gen. Contracting v. PDM HYDROSTORAGE, INCORP.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
- Harding v. HardingCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Meadows v. GoffCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.