Moore v. Thompson's adm'r
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 80 — EQUITY APPEAL PROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT. 1. If the donor intended to deprive Mrs. Moore of the power to sell the land after his death, and to compel her to remain upon it at all hazards, he certainly would have used more explicit languaga than is used in writing. There is nothing, we think, in the writing to restrict her power of sale after his death. 2. Subsection 1 of section 492 is directory rather than mandatory. (Story’s Eq.
Read the full summary
Case 80 — EQUITY APPEAL PROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT. 1. If the donor intended to deprive Mrs. Moore of the power to sell the land after his death, and to compel her to remain upon it at all hazards, he certainly would have used more explicit languaga than is used in writing. There is nothing, we think, in the writing to restrict her power of sale after his death. 2. Subsection 1 of section 492 is directory rather than mandatory. (Story’s Eq. Jur., 2d vol., 1804; Jarman on Wills, vol. 1, chap. 28; 4 Kent, 129; 10 Pick., 507; 9 Wheat., 489.)
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Hargis
This was an action in equity by the appellants, who are husband and wife, to sell and reinvest the proceeds of the separate estate of the wife in a tract of land which was •given to her by her father.
The writing by which the .separate estate was created expressly forbids the sale of the land until the youngest child of Mrs. Moore shall attain the age of twenty-.one.
The appellants allege that, by reason of personal injuries inflicted on the husband by disguised men, and the effect of their midnight raid on his home upon the nerves of the wife, and the general danger to which he is exposed by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Morton's Gd'n v. MortonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1905
- Lee v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- Rousseau v. Page's Extx.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Sparrow v. SparrowCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916