Ex parte Franklin
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 103 — EQUITY APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The word “ may ” used in the statute, is not infrequently equivalent to “shall.” Sometimes it is permissive, sometimes directory. “It means shall when the public or individuals have a claim de jure that the power shall be exercised.” (5 Johnson’s Ch’y, 113; 5 Conn., 188; 22 Barb., 104; Story’s Conflict of Laws, 17.) 2. When appellant made out her case, the court had no discretion, and should have granted the power.
Read the full summary
Case 103 — EQUITY APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The word “ may ” used in the statute, is not infrequently equivalent to “shall.” Sometimes it is permissive, sometimes directory. “It means shall when the public or individuals have a claim de jure that the power shall be exercised.” (5 Johnson’s Ch’y, 113; 5 Conn., 188; 22 Barb., 104; Story’s Conflict of Laws, 17.) 2. When appellant made out her case, the court had no discretion, and should have granted the power. (Moran v. Moran, 12 Bush, 302.) Appellant has set forth no material advantages that would accrue to her, nor any necessity…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HARGIS
delivered the opinion of tiie court.
Elizabeth Franklin and her husband filed a joint petition, praying the circuit court to empower her to use, enjoy, sell, and convey her property for her own benefit, make contracts, trade in her own name, sue and be sued as a single woman, and dispose of her property by deed or will.
It is alleged and proven that she owns 72 acres of land, willed to her by her grandfather, and twenty other acres which she purchased, and some personal property, and that her husband is insolvent. The witnesses state that she is. *498well qualified to exercise the power…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Azbill v. AzbillCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1891
- Sypert v. HarrisonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889