Roberts v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Roberts v. Smith

15 Ky. 348, 5 Litt. 348, 1824 Ky. LEXIS 110

DecidedJune 14, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Ky. 348 (Roberts v. Smith) 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

Roberts v. Smith, 15 Ky. 348, 5 Litt. 348, 1824 Ky. LEXIS 110 (Ky. Ct. App. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court,

by Judge Owsley.

THIS being an appeal from a judgment of a justice to the circuit court, where the cause was tried without pleadings in writing, and evidence having been introdu°ed on ^16 trial in the circuit court by Smith, who is plaintiff in the warrant, conducing to prove that he had hired his son to Roberts, for the term of one year, at the of eighty dollars, and that after serving six months ^ time, his son voluntarily abandoned the service of Roberts, the court should have instructed the jury, that in this form of suit, Smith could not recover, if they be^evec^ fr0In the evidence that the contract for the hire of Smith’s son, was for the term of one year, at eighty dollars, and that the son had not remained with Roberts during that time; and in refusing so to instruct the jury, the court erred.

The judgment must be reversed with costs, the cause remanded to the court below, and further proceedings there had, not inconsistent with this opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court,

by Judge Owsley.

THIS being an appeal from a judgment of a justice to the circuit court, where the cause was tried without pleadings in writing, and evidence having been introdu°ed on ^16 trial in the circuit court by Smith, who is plaintiff in the warrant, conducing to prove that he had hired his son to Roberts, for the term of one year, at the of eighty dollars, and that after serving six months ^ time, his son voluntarily abandoned the service of Roberts, the court should have instructed the jury, that in this form of suit, Smith could not recover, if they be^evec^ fr0In the evidence that the contract for the hire of Smith’s son, was for the term of one year, at eighty dollars, and that the son had not remained with Roberts during that time; and in refusing so to instruct the jury, the court erred.

The judgment must be reversed with costs, the cause remanded to the court below, and further proceedings there had, not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Ky. 348, 5 Litt. 348, 1824 Ky. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-smith-kyctapp-1824.