Hanks v. Roberts

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Hanks v. Roberts

26 Ky. 298, 3 J.J. Marsh. 298, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 47

DecidedJanuary 16, 1830

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Ky. 298 (Hanks v. Roberts) 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

Hanks v. Roberts, 26 Ky. 298, 3 J.J. Marsh. 298, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 47 (Ky. Ct. App. 1830).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Buckner

delivered the opinion of the Court. ,

This was a case tried in the circuit court, upon a traverse taken in a writ of forcible entry and detainer, instituted by Roberts against Hanks.

After Roberts had closed the examination of his witnesses, Hanks moved the court to instruct the jury as incase of a non-suit: but the court overruled the motion; to which an exception was taken. An instruction was then moved lor by Hanks, which was also refused in the shape it was asked for, but given with some modiiieation. After this, Roberts introduced and examined another witness, whose testimony was not material to the issue. The proof introduced did not warrant the w rdict which was returned in favor of Roberts, and on which the court gave judgment in his favor. The motion i'or the non-suit ought, therefore, to have been sustained.

The judgment of the court below must he reversed with costs, and the cause remanded tor further proceedings to be had, not inconsistent with this opinion-,

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

Judge Buckner

delivered the opinion of the Court. ,

This was a case tried in the circuit court, upon a traverse taken in a writ of forcible entry and detainer, instituted by Roberts against Hanks.

After Roberts had closed the examination of his witnesses, Hanks moved the court to instruct the jury as incase of a non-suit: but the court overruled the motion; to which an exception was taken. An instruction was then moved lor by Hanks, which was also refused in the shape it was asked for, but given with some modiiieation. After this, Roberts introduced and examined another witness, whose testimony was not material to the issue. The proof introduced did not warrant the w rdict which was returned in favor of Roberts, and on which the court gave judgment in his favor. The motion i'or the non-suit ought, therefore, to have been sustained.

The judgment of the court below must he reversed with costs, and the cause remanded tor further proceedings to be had, not inconsistent with this opinion-,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Ky. 298, 3 J.J. Marsh. 298, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanks-v-roberts-kyctapp-1830.