Hall v. Hall

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Hall v. Hall

288 S.W.2d 51, 1956 Ky. LEXIS 242

DecidedMarch 9, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 288 S.W.2d 51 (Hall v. Hall) 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

Hall v. Hall, 288 S.W.2d 51, 1956 Ky. LEXIS 242 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment dismissing appellant’s complaint to recover $500 for nursing services and other minor items. Appellant and appellee were partners in conducting a nursing home. Appellant alleged that the p'arties had orally agreed to do night nursing regularly; that appellee had refused to do so; that appellant had performed appellee’s duties in her stead; and that the reasonable value of the services was $500.

In our opinion the complaint was properly dismissed because: (1) In the written partnership agreement each party was to devote her entire time to the operation of the partnership business, and therefore appellant could not have had extra time in the business to sell to appellee; and (2) the alleged oral agreement was so indefinite as not to be enforceable in the manner sought.

The motion for appeal is denied and the judgment stands affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment dismissing appellant’s complaint to recover $500 for nursing services and other minor items. Appellant and appellee were partners in conducting a nursing home. Appellant alleged that the p'arties had orally agreed to do night nursing regularly; that appellee had refused to do so; that appellant had performed appellee’s duties in her stead; and that the reasonable value of the services was $500.

In our opinion the complaint was properly dismissed because: (1) In the written partnership agreement each party was to devote her entire time to the operation of the partnership business, and therefore appellant could not have had extra time in the business to sell to appellee; and (2) the alleged oral agreement was so indefinite as not to be enforceable in the manner sought.

The motion for appeal is denied and the judgment stands affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 S.W.2d 51, 1956 Ky. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-hall-kyctapp-1956.