Brown v. Farnler

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Brown v. Farnler

3 Ky. Op. 46, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 273

DecidedJanuary 16, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ky. Op. 46 (Brown v. Farnler) 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

Brown v. Farnler, 3 Ky. Op. 46, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 273 (Ky. Ct. App. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The defense of the appellant admits that E. M. Farnler signed the name of the appellant to his bond as guardian of his infant son under a paper purporting to be a power of attorney authorizing him to do so, which was attested and proved by the witness Ruffner, but the appellant sought to avoid the bond on the alleged ground that Farnler fraudulently procured his signature to the power of attorney by deceiving him as to the nature of the paper and its object, and effect, when it was signed. This issue devolved on the defendant the burden of proving the facts alleged in avoidance of the bond.

It seems to us that the testimony of Ruffner and others tending to sustain the defense is neutralized by that of Farnler, corroborated as he is in a great measure by Slayed and that the judgment of the chancellor was authorized.

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The defense of the appellant admits that E. M. Farnler signed the name of the appellant to his bond as guardian of his infant son under a paper purporting to be a power of attorney authorizing him to do so, which was attested and proved by the witness Ruffner, but the appellant sought to avoid the bond on the alleged ground that Farnler fraudulently procured his signature to the power of attorney by deceiving him as to the nature of the paper and its object, and effect, when it was signed. This issue devolved on the defendant the burden of proving the facts alleged in avoidance of the bond.

It seems to us that the testimony of Ruffner and others tending to sustain the defense is neutralized by that of Farnler, corroborated as he is in a great measure by Slayed and that the judgment of the chancellor was authorized.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ky. Op. 46, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-farnler-kyctapp-1869.