Chisholm v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Chisholm v. Mitchell

28 Ky. 361, 5 J.J. Marsh. 361, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 39

DecidedApril 7, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Ky. 361 (Chisholm v. Mitchell) 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

Chisholm v. Mitchell, 28 Ky. 361, 5 J.J. Marsh. 361, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 39 (Ky. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

.fudge Uxouiuvuoi',

delivered the opinion of the court.

The attempt to show, mat Priscilla, the slave in contest, was not subject to the execution, under which Mitchell purchased, because McClellan had mortgag :d her jo Elder, oug'.it not to have succe .¡tied. The contract between McClellan and Elder, did not náss the title to rhe latter, at the time it was executed. [362]*362Whether the title would ever vest in Elder, under that contract, depended upon a condition which had not happened when Priscilla was sold under the execution against McClellan, nor had the time arrived, when, according to the contemplation of the parties, it would be ■ascertained whether the title should pass to Elder. Whilst the property was in this condition, it was subject to executions against Mr. Clcllan. It did not appear, that the condition, upon which the title was to vest in Elder, had happened before the trial of this caused Whether it will-over happen, is uncertain.

Monroe, foi appellant; .Denny, for appellee.

It sepms there are three persons ’in Washington county, bearing the name of i’ohcrt Mitchell. It is contended by Chisholm, that the’individual denominated Jiburbon Rob, for distinction, is the person, plaintiff in this action, whereas, sheriff L'ob, is the person, in whom the title is shown to be, he, having been the purchaser at the sale, made under the execution. If Bourbon Bob, is the plainliff, he has no right to recover. We arc of opinion, that the evidence of 1he attorney, who brought the suit,ought to be regarded, in a case like this, as conclusive. The attorney ¡dates, that the suit was brought for Robert Mitchell, usually called sh'riff Bob. On the last trial, it was proved by Hughes, that the plainliff in the action, was ihe purchaser of the slave at the sheriff s safe. We, therefore, perceive no error in ilie proceedings of the court below.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs and damages.

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

.fudge Uxouiuvuoi',

delivered the opinion of the court.

The attempt to show, mat Priscilla, the slave in contest, was not subject to the execution, under which Mitchell purchased, because McClellan had mortgag :d her jo Elder, oug'.it not to have succe .¡tied. The contract between McClellan and Elder, did not náss the title to rhe latter, at the time it was executed. [362]*362Whether the title would ever vest in Elder, under that contract, depended upon a condition which had not happened when Priscilla was sold under the execution against McClellan, nor had the time arrived, when, according to the contemplation of the parties, it would be ■ascertained whether the title should pass to Elder. Whilst the property was in this condition, it was subject to executions against Mr. Clcllan. It did not appear, that the condition, upon which the title was to vest in Elder, had happened before the trial of this caused Whether it will-over happen, is uncertain.

Monroe, foi appellant; .Denny, for appellee.

It sepms there are three persons ’in Washington county, bearing the name of i’ohcrt Mitchell. It is contended by Chisholm, that the’individual denominated Jiburbon Rob, for distinction, is the person, plaintiff in this action, whereas, sheriff L'ob, is the person, in whom the title is shown to be, he, having been the purchaser at the sale, made under the execution. If Bourbon Bob, is the plainliff, he has no right to recover. We arc of opinion, that the evidence of 1he attorney, who brought the suit,ought to be regarded, in a case like this, as conclusive. The attorney ¡dates, that the suit was brought for Robert Mitchell, usually called sh'riff Bob. On the last trial, it was proved by Hughes, that the plainliff in the action, was ihe purchaser of the slave at the sheriff s safe. We, therefore, perceive no error in ilie proceedings of the court below.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs and damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Ky. 361, 5 J.J. Marsh. 361, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chisholm-v-mitchell-kyctapp-1831.