Johnson v. Belt

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Johnson v. Belt

67 Ky. 405, 4 Bush 405, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 148

DecidedJanuary 12, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 67 Ky. 405 (Johnson v. Belt) 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

Johnson v. Belt, 67 Ky. 405, 4 Bush 405, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 148 (Ky. Ct. App. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGE HARDIN

delivered the opinion op the court:

The right of a creditor of a decedent to sue his heirs or devisees in equity, as was done in this case, is expressly conferred by the 10th section of chapter 40 of the Revised Statutes.

The affidavit affixed to the written evidence of the • plaintiffs’ claim is in substantial conformity to the requirements of section 34 of article 2 of chapter 37 of the Revised Statutes; and as the provision of section 473 of the [406]*406Civil Code, which requires a demand of the debt claimed before an action shall be brought against, a personal representative, is restricted in its application to actions against personal representatives, the failure to make such demand was not an available ground for dismissing this action against the claims of McDonald.

The court properly overruled the motion to dismiss the action, and we perceive no error in the judgment, which is therefore affirmed.

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

JUDGE HARDIN

delivered the opinion op the court:

The right of a creditor of a decedent to sue his heirs or devisees in equity, as was done in this case, is expressly conferred by the 10th section of chapter 40 of the Revised Statutes.

The affidavit affixed to the written evidence of the • plaintiffs’ claim is in substantial conformity to the requirements of section 34 of article 2 of chapter 37 of the Revised Statutes; and as the provision of section 473 of the [406]*406Civil Code, which requires a demand of the debt claimed before an action shall be brought against, a personal representative, is restricted in its application to actions against personal representatives, the failure to make such demand was not an available ground for dismissing this action against the claims of McDonald.

The court properly overruled the motion to dismiss the action, and we perceive no error in the judgment, which is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 Ky. 405, 4 Bush 405, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-belt-kyctapp-1868.