Kincaid v. Kincaid

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Kincaid v. Kincaid

24 Ky. 100, 1 J.J. Marsh. 100, 1829 Ky. LEXIS 228

DecidedFebruary 6, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Ky. 100 (Kincaid v. Kincaid) 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

Kincaid v. Kincaid, 24 Ky. 100, 1 J.J. Marsh. 100, 1829 Ky. LEXIS 228 (Ky. Ct. App. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Robertson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

. A notice, executed on the 4th of December, to take a deposition, on the ' 14th of the same month, at a place 290 miles distant, from the residence of the person notified, is not a reasonable notice.

The bill of sale was sufficiently proved, to be suffered to be read to. the jury. The judge, in effect, did no more than decide, that it was “sufficiently proved” to go to the jury. Therefore, there is no error in the opinion, on these points. But the court erred in not granting a new trial; To reject for another reason, without notice of objection, depositions which had [101]*101been read on a former trial of the same suit, without objection, (as the affidavit discloses' to hay© been the fact in this case) is such a surprise- -as. teyentitle the party surprised, to a new trial.

Haggin, for plaintiff; Triplett, for defendant.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Judge Robertson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

. A notice, executed on the 4th of December, to take a deposition, on the ' 14th of the same month, at a place 290 miles distant, from the residence of the person notified, is not a reasonable notice.

The bill of sale was sufficiently proved, to be suffered to be read to. the jury. The judge, in effect, did no more than decide, that it was “sufficiently proved” to go to the jury. Therefore, there is no error in the opinion, on these points. But the court erred in not granting a new trial; To reject for another reason, without notice of objection, depositions which had [101]*101been read on a former trial of the same suit, without objection, (as the affidavit discloses' to hay© been the fact in this case) is such a surprise- -as. teyentitle the party surprised, to a new trial.

Haggin, for plaintiff; Triplett, for defendant.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Ky. 100, 1 J.J. Marsh. 100, 1829 Ky. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kincaid-v-kincaid-kyctapp-1829.