Hutcheson v. Mudd

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Hutcheson v. Mudd

29 Ky. 580, 6 J.J. Marsh. 580, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 262

DecidedOctober 20, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ky. 580 (Hutcheson v. Mudd) 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

Hutcheson v. Mudd, 29 Ky. 580, 6 J.J. Marsh. 580, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 262 (Ky. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Underwood,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon an examination of the record* when presented for a supersedeas, we were inclined to think the circuit court had erred, and therefore awarded a supersedeas. But on a thorough investigation, we are satisfied with the decree. The claim of Mudd against Hutcheson grows out of the guardianship of the latter for the wife of the former. The accounts originated from the rents of land, and they are presented in such a manner that it is not practicable to ascertain, wdth certainty, how much Hutch-ison justly owes. Besides, the evidence is contradictory. One thing is certain, and that is, Hutche-son failed to do his duty by settling with the county court annually as a guardian is required by law to d®. This frilure indicates negligence or fraud. If he suffers by the decree it is his own fault. But we think injustice has not been done him, especially when we see that the funds in his hands would have-brought a considerable sum in interest before his expenditures for his ward were any thing like equal to them, provided he had done his duty faithfully as a guardian should have done.

Decree affirmed with damages and costs.

Notet — Absent, Judge Buckner.

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

Judge Underwood,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon an examination of the record* when presented for a supersedeas, we were inclined to think the circuit court had erred, and therefore awarded a supersedeas. But on a thorough investigation, we are satisfied with the decree. The claim of Mudd against Hutcheson grows out of the guardianship of the latter for the wife of the former. The accounts originated from the rents of land, and they are presented in such a manner that it is not practicable to ascertain, wdth certainty, how much Hutch-ison justly owes. Besides, the evidence is contradictory. One thing is certain, and that is, Hutche-son failed to do his duty by settling with the county court annually as a guardian is required by law to d®. This frilure indicates negligence or fraud. If he suffers by the decree it is his own fault. But we think injustice has not been done him, especially when we see that the funds in his hands would have-brought a considerable sum in interest before his expenditures for his ward were any thing like equal to them, provided he had done his duty faithfully as a guardian should have done.

Decree affirmed with damages and costs.

Notet — Absent, Judge Buckner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ky. 580, 6 J.J. Marsh. 580, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutcheson-v-mudd-kyctapp-1831.