Penny's Admr. v. Penny's Admr.

1 Ky. Op. 435, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 272
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedJune 30, 1867
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ky. Op. 435 (Penny's Admr. v. Penny's Admr.) 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
Penny's Admr. v. Penny's Admr., 1 Ky. Op. 435, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 272 (Ky. Ct. App. 1867).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters :

There is some contradiction between the original petition and the amendment, resulting perhaps from a misunderstanding of the facts, or unskillfulness, on the part of the attorney who drew the original; but the amended petition was in the nature of a bill quia timet, and was brought for the purpose of litigating the question of right to the debt of $858.65 which the appellant, while administrator of W. W. Penny, deceased, collected, but had not accounted for in the settlement of the estate of the intestate, which he had made, entertaining a doubt, as he did, whether the money belonged to the estate of the intestate, W. W. Penny, or of the estate of Thomas Penny, deceased, whose personal representative he then was.

In order, therefore, to have the question properly and finally adjudicated to which estate the fund belonged, the suit was brought against the personal representative and heirs of W. W. Penny, all being alike interested in a final adjustment of the question necessary to settle the estates of said decedents, and the demurrer to the petition Was, therefore, improperly sustained. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Ky. Op. 435, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennys-admr-v-pennys-admr-kyctapp-1867.