McBean v. Richey

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

McBean v. Richey

5 Ky. Op. 146, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 248

DecidedMarch 25, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ky. Op. 146 (McBean v. Richey) 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

McBean v. Richey, 5 Ky. Op. 146, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 248 (Ky. Ct. App. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of ti-ie Court by

Judge Hardin:

The answers of both the Richeys and Hughes are singularly silent, and apparently evasive as to the ability of Arthur W. Richey to pay for the land; and the consideration, if any, which was paid by Hughes for the notes; and the testimony of W. W. Richey, though taken .to sustain the claim of Hughes, is equally unsatisfactory on that subject. It seems almost incredible that [147]*147if those transactions were in good faith, and especially if Hughes -bought the notes and -paid their value for them, though even W. W. Richey, in giving his deposition would have failed to explain how, or in what he was paid for the notes.

King, J. B. Husband, for appellant. Bullock, Bramlette, appellee.

Upon the whole case, as presented in the record, we must conclude 'that the plaintiff was entitled to -relief, and that the court erred in dismissing .his petition.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Opinion of ti-ie Court by

Judge Hardin:

The answers of both the Richeys and Hughes are singularly silent, and apparently evasive as to the ability of Arthur W. Richey to pay for the land; and the consideration, if any, which was paid by Hughes for the notes; and the testimony of W. W. Richey, though taken .to sustain the claim of Hughes, is equally unsatisfactory on that subject. It seems almost incredible that [147]*147if those transactions were in good faith, and especially if Hughes -bought the notes and -paid their value for them, though even W. W. Richey, in giving his deposition would have failed to explain how, or in what he was paid for the notes.

King, J. B. Husband, for appellant. Bullock, Bramlette, appellee.

Upon the whole case, as presented in the record, we must conclude 'that the plaintiff was entitled to -relief, and that the court erred in dismissing .his petition.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ky. Op. 146, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcbean-v-richey-kyctapp-1872.