Hamm v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Hamm v. Jones

311 S.W.2d 394, 1958 Ky. LEXIS 191

DecidedMarch 14, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 311 S.W.2d 394 (Hamm v. Jones) 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

Hamm v. Jones, 311 S.W.2d 394, 1958 Ky. LEXIS 191 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on motion for an appeal under KRS 21.080. Jones sued Hamm for $350, the balance allegedly due him upon an oral contract for his services as a carpenter, and Hamm filed a counterclaim alleging that he would have to expend money to finish the work in a proper manner. The jury awarded Jones $270 on his claim. The case is here on a narrative record and Hamm claims Jones’ counsel committed prejudicial error when he requested, in the presence of the jury, that the jury be permitted to view the property. The court permitted the jury to view the premises, and, since we cannot see how the jury’s viewing the premises could have been prejudicial on the narrative record before us, we cannot assume that the motion made in the alleged circumstances prejudiced Hamm’s case in any way.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on motion for an appeal under KRS 21.080. Jones sued Hamm for $350, the balance allegedly due him upon an oral contract for his services as a carpenter, and Hamm filed a counterclaim alleging that he would have to expend money to finish the work in a proper manner. The jury awarded Jones $270 on his claim. The case is here on a narrative record and Hamm claims Jones’ counsel committed prejudicial error when he requested, in the presence of the jury, that the jury be permitted to view the property. The court permitted the jury to view the premises, and, since we cannot see how the jury’s viewing the premises could have been prejudicial on the narrative record before us, we cannot assume that the motion made in the alleged circumstances prejudiced Hamm’s case in any way.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

311 S.W.2d 394, 1958 Ky. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamm-v-jones-kyctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack