Hobbs' ex'r v. Russell's ex'r
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 12 — EQUITY APPEAL FROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The court erred in admitting the testimony of Samuel Russell, executor of Henry Russell, as to matters occurring between appellant’s, testator and himself. 2. The Civil Code, subsec. 2, sec. 606, excludes such evidence. 3. It is upon this testimony alone that the circuit court released appellee’s testator from responsibility. 1. The admissibility of the testimony of Samuel Russell, who is executor of his father, Henry…
Read the full summary
Case 12 — EQUITY APPEAL FROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The court erred in admitting the testimony of Samuel Russell, executor of Henry Russell, as to matters occurring between appellant’s, testator and himself. 2. The Civil Code, subsec. 2, sec. 606, excludes such evidence. 3. It is upon this testimony alone that the circuit court released appellee’s testator from responsibility. 1. The admissibility of the testimony of Samuel Russell, who is executor of his father, Henry Russell, should be governed by the same rules that it would have been in an issue of this kind between all the parties…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Pryor
If the defense relied on by the heirs and one of the executors of Henry Russell has been sustained by the proof, there can be no reason for disturbing the judgment, unless Samuel Russell, one of the executors, was incompetent as a witness. His testimony defeats the recovery against the heirs and executors, as the contract for indulgence is estab*62lished by him. This witness is not only the principal •obligor in the note, but he is one of the executors of the will, and also a devisee; and while he admits the execution ■of the note and his individual liability, his testimony prevents any judgment…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Doty's Adm'r v. Doty's GuardianCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
- Alexander's Ex'rs v. AlfordCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1883
- Morgan v. Moore'sCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923