Bowles v. Winchester

7 Ky. Op. 582, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 226
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bowles v. Winchester. Read the opinion of the Court — 76 Ky. 1
Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided March 16, 1874·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

Muir & Biju/r, for executor. Duke, Richards, for appellees. J. F. Bullitt, for appellant.

The decision of this case must be ruled by those of Hughey et al. v. Sidwell’s Heirs, 18 B. Monroe 259, and Walters et al. v. Ratliff, 5 Bush 575. If, notwithstanding the right of appeal to the court of common pleas from the judgment of probate, there existed grounds for impeaching that judgment in a court of equity, as any other decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the petition in this case, does not, in our opinion, state facts Which are sufficient to give a court of equity jurisdiction for that purpose. If, as is alleged, the paper admitted to record as the will of Joshua B. Bow-les, is incomplete, qr not his entire last will and testament, we can perceive no sufficient reason why the appellant’s remedy was not adequate and ample by appeal to the Jefferson Court of Common Pleas.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Bowles v. Winchester, 7 Ky. Op. 582, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 226 (Ky. Ct. App. 1874).

7 Ky. Op. 582 (Bowles v. Winchester) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walters v. Ratliff
68 Ky. 575 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1869)