Orr v. Good's

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Orr v. Good's

159 S.W. 712, 155 Ky. 138, 1913 Ky. LEXIS 228

DecidedOctober 7, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 159 S.W. 712 (Orr v. Good's) 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

Orr v. Good's, 159 S.W. 712, 155 Ky. 138, 1913 Ky. LEXIS 228 (Ky. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Carroll

Affirming.

This ease may be disposed of in a few words. In 1894 Cox and his wife conveyed to D. B. Good a lot in Lexington “in consideration of an exchange of property this day made, and the further consideration that D. B. Good and Margaret A. Good, party of the second part, binds themselves to pay off two thousand dollars of a mortgage of twenty-five hundred dollars held against the property.” The conveyance was made directly to D. B. Good, and the only mention of or reference directly or indirectly to Margaret A. Good is in the clause quoted.

The only question is, did Margaret A. Good, by virtue of this mention of her name, take any interest in the property of any kind or character? It is very evident that she did not, and as the lower court so ruled, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Carroll

Affirming.

This ease may be disposed of in a few words. In 1894 Cox and his wife conveyed to D. B. Good a lot in Lexington “in consideration of an exchange of property this day made, and the further consideration that D. B. Good and Margaret A. Good, party of the second part, binds themselves to pay off two thousand dollars of a mortgage of twenty-five hundred dollars held against the property.” The conveyance was made directly to D. B. Good, and the only mention of or reference directly or indirectly to Margaret A. Good is in the clause quoted.

The only question is, did Margaret A. Good, by virtue of this mention of her name, take any interest in the property of any kind or character? It is very evident that she did not, and as the lower court so ruled, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.W. 712, 155 Ky. 138, 1913 Ky. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orr-v-goods-kyctapp-1913.