Bailey v. Jackson

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Bailey v. Jackson

3 Ky. Op. 718, 1870 Ky. LEXIS 257

DecidedJune 23, 1870

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ky. Op. 718 (Bailey v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Jackson, 3 Ky. Op. 718, 1870 Ky. LEXIS 257 (Ky. Ct. App. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

This is, according to the record, a strange case. The pleadings and evidence do not clearly disclose the grounds of the verdict. One of the contested claims was a medical account, without special proof of any one item in the account. After their retirement the jury perplexed as to the proof necessary to sustain that account, came into court and, inquiring of the judge what kind of proof should be required, were told in substance that less proof was sufficient to establish a medical than any other species of account, but that they should be “satisfied” that the account was just.

And with that information they probably found the whole account just.

That, instruction was too vague and left an indefinite margin which may have misled the jury and probably did.

Dunlap, for appellant. Durham, & Jacobs, Bell, for appellee.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

This is, according to the record, a strange case. The pleadings and evidence do not clearly disclose the grounds of the verdict. One of the contested claims was a medical account, without special proof of any one item in the account. After their retirement the jury perplexed as to the proof necessary to sustain that account, came into court and, inquiring of the judge what kind of proof should be required, were told in substance that less proof was sufficient to establish a medical than any other species of account, but that they should be “satisfied” that the account was just.

And with that information they probably found the whole account just.

That, instruction was too vague and left an indefinite margin which may have misled the jury and probably did.

Dunlap, for appellant. Durham, & Jacobs, Bell, for appellee.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ky. Op. 718, 1870 Ky. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-jackson-kyctapp-1870.