Licking River Lumber & Mining Co. v. Bowlesby

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Licking River Lumber & Mining Co. v. Bowlesby

6 Ky. Op. 371, 1873 Ky. LEXIS 159

DecidedJanuary 7, 1873

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ky. Op. 371 (Licking River Lumber & Mining Co. v. Bowlesby) 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

Licking River Lumber & Mining Co. v. Bowlesby, 6 Ky. Op. 371, 1873 Ky. LEXIS 159 (Ky. Ct. App. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

We are inclined to concur in the opinion of the court below that the evidence discloses such an agency upon the part of the parties who were served with process in this case as authorized a judgment against the company.

The company had an office at Bangor, and their prospectus holds out that point as the principal location of their business operations. Hays Meyer is the bookkeeper in their store. Whitcomb was their agent in receiving lumber, and Baldwin, who was one of the original" incorporators, and also a stockholder, was the general agent in making contracts for lumber. No other persons are designated or named as the agents of the company in Morgan County, and process having been served upon all three, the court acted properly in rendering the judgment.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

We are inclined to concur in the opinion of the court below that the evidence discloses such an agency upon the part of the parties who were served with process in this case as authorized a judgment against the company.

The company had an office at Bangor, and their prospectus holds out that point as the principal location of their business operations. Hays Meyer is the bookkeeper in their store. Whitcomb was their agent in receiving lumber, and Baldwin, who was one of the original" incorporators, and also a stockholder, was the general agent in making contracts for lumber. No other persons are designated or named as the agents of the company in Morgan County, and process having been served upon all three, the court acted properly in rendering the judgment.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ky. Op. 371, 1873 Ky. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/licking-river-lumber-mining-co-v-bowlesby-kyctapp-1873.