Farns v. Hamilton
This text of 7 Ky. Op. 243 (Farns v. Hamilton) 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.
Opinion
Opinion by
The order changing the venue became void at the expiration of ten days, by the failure of both parties to pay the expenses of the removal. Act March 5, 1860, Sec. 11. But if this were not so, the appellants admitted the jurisdiction of the court by taking steps in the case after the order was made.
The only other question in the case is whether or not the action was barred by limitation. We can not see how the statute could have begun to run in favor of Farns before he' collected the money of Harford, which was less than five years before the institution of the suit, even without deducting the time within which his administration could not be sued.
In our opinion the action was no't barred by limitation, and the judgment, which is sustained by the evidence, is, therefore, affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
7 Ky. Op. 243, 1873 Ky. LEXIS 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farns-v-hamilton-kyctapp-1873.