Pullins' Administrator v. Smith
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 49 — ACTION ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT — APPEAL PROM MADISON OIEOTJÍT COURT. 1. Before the defendant can maintain its action upon the set off the claim must have been presented to the administrator verified in the manner provided by law. Warfield v. Gardner’s Admr., 79 Ky., 683; Swift Iron & Steel Works v. Schulte, 8 Ky. Law Rep., 787; Usher’s Exrs. v. Flood, 12 Ky.
Read the full summary
Case 49 — ACTION ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT — APPEAL PROM MADISON OIEOTJÍT COURT. 1. Before the defendant can maintain its action upon the set off the claim must have been presented to the administrator verified in the manner provided by law. Warfield v. Gardner’s Admr., 79 Ky., 683; Swift Iron & Steel Works v. Schulte, 8 Ky. Law Rep., 787; Usher’s Exrs. v. Flood, 12 Ky. Law Rep., 721. 2. An allegation of a transaction with an intestate in his life-time made in a bill against his administrator is not to be taken as assumed because it is not answered by the administrator. Ball v. Townsend, Litt.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HOBSON
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellant brought suit in equity against appellee, asking a personal j udgment on a note for $852.65 executed by appellee to his intestate for a tract of land, and to enforce the lien on the land retained in the deed to secure its payment. After admitting the execution of the note, the defendant, in his answer, set up the following defense in bar of the action: “Further answering, defendant says that when this action was instituted in the Madison Circuit Court, and prior thereto, this plaintiff’s intestate, the said Alva Pullins, was indebted to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Trevathan's v. Dees' ExecutorsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1927
- Daviess County Bank & Trust Co. v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Surber v. WoodruffClermont County Court of Common Pleas · 1983