Littell v. Redd

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Littell v. Redd

4 Ky. Op. 326, 1871 Ky. LEXIS 200

DecidedMay 26, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Ky. Op. 326 (Littell v. Redd) 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

Littell v. Redd, 4 Ky. Op. 326, 1871 Ky. LEXIS 200 (Ky. Ct. App. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION, op the Court by

Judge Peters :

We are assured by tbe allegations in tbe petition, and tbe admissions in tbe answer of tbe existence of tbe material facts that a deed was executed by appellant to bis daughter tbe appellee M.' J". Eedd for 110 acres of land in Grant county, and that it was-acknowledged by bim before tbe proper officer. But perplexed by tbe great uncertainty in wbicb other material facts are shrouded by tbe conflict in tbe evidence and we may add by tbe unsatisfactory manner in wbicb tbe witnesses depose, we do, not feel, authorized to reverse tbe judgment.

Where a deed is executed tbe law raises a presumption that' the party benefited by it will accept it, on this case tbe appelleeMrs. Eedd was tbe beneficiary in tbe deed, and tbe evidence is-not sufficient to overcome that legal presumption.

Wherefore tbe judgment, is affirmed.

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

OPINION, op the Court by

Judge Peters :

We are assured by tbe allegations in tbe petition, and tbe admissions in tbe answer of tbe existence of tbe material facts that a deed was executed by appellant to bis daughter tbe appellee M.' J". Eedd for 110 acres of land in Grant county, and that it was-acknowledged by bim before tbe proper officer. But perplexed by tbe great uncertainty in wbicb other material facts are shrouded by tbe conflict in tbe evidence and we may add by tbe unsatisfactory manner in wbicb tbe witnesses depose, we do, not feel, authorized to reverse tbe judgment.

Where a deed is executed tbe law raises a presumption that' the party benefited by it will accept it, on this case tbe appelleeMrs. Eedd was tbe beneficiary in tbe deed, and tbe evidence is-not sufficient to overcome that legal presumption.

Wherefore tbe judgment, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Ky. Op. 326, 1871 Ky. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/littell-v-redd-kyctapp-1871.