Noland v. Turner's Heirs
This text of 28 Ky. 179 (Noland v. Turner's Heirs) 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.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
It seems to the court, that the circuit court erred in its decree.
1st. This being a decree for distribution, John Turner’s heirs, who were co-distributees, were necessary-parties.
The allegation that Noland, was a party, owned their interest, cannot affect their rights, and:the chancellor should never decree distri but ion..-unless all persons interested in the distributable-fund'are parties to the suit; so that the whole.controversy may be finally-closed.
íád. The evidence did not justify a decree for $50 a year for rent for the whole time. The decree for rent is. for too much.
. 3d. Noland was entitled to something for his services as administrator. The use of the proceeds without interest, is compensation enough for his trouble, in renting the land.
• Wherefore, the decree is reversed, and the cause romanded.for-further proceedings, according to this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
28 Ky. 179, 5 J.J. Marsh. 179, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noland-v-turners-heirs-kyctapp-1830.