Pancake & Canfield v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

Pancake & Canfield v. Smith

34 S.W.2d 732, 237 Ky. 29, 1931 Ky. LEXIS 528

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

DecidedJanuary 16, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 34 S.W.2d 732 (Pancake & Canfield v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pancake & Canfield v. Smith, 34 S.W.2d 732, 237 Ky. 29, 1931 Ky. LEXIS 528 (Ky. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Drury, Commissioner

Affirming.

Pancake & Canfield sued Herman Smith for $956.88 upon an alleged paving contract. The court directed a verdict for the defendant, and they have appealed. In 1924 Pancake & Canfield were paving Pond Run Road in Raeeland, Ky., under private contracts made with various property owners. Smith had property on both sides of this road. These pavers paved this property without having any contract directly with Smith, but upon what they testify was a contract made with Smith through his father-in-law, I. N. Fritz. They introduced Fritz in an effort to prove his agency for Smith, but he denied being Smith’s agent, and testified he told them not to pave in front of Smith’s property. They had no other evidence. The court properly directed a verdict for Smith.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion op the Court by

Drury, Commissioner

Affirming.

Pancake & Canfield sued Herman Smith for $956.88 upon an alleged paving contract. The court directed a verdict for the defendant, and they have appealed. In 1924 Pancake & Canfield were paving Pond Run Road in Raeeland, Ky., under private contracts made with various property owners. Smith had property on both sides of this road. These pavers paved this property without having any contract directly with Smith, but upon what they testify was a contract made with Smith through his father-in-law, I. N. Fritz. They introduced Fritz in an effort to prove his agency for Smith, but he denied being Smith’s agent, and testified he told them not to pave in front of Smith’s property. They had no other evidence. The court properly directed a verdict for Smith.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 S.W.2d 732, 237 Ky. 29, 1931 Ky. LEXIS 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pancake-canfield-v-smith-kyctapphigh-1931.