Robinson v. McLaughlin

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Robinson v. McLaughlin

3 Ky. Op. 614, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 524

DecidedApril 26, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ky. Op. 614 (Robinson v. McLaughlin) 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

Robinson v. McLaughlin, 3 Ky. Op. 614, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 524 (Ky. Ct. App. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

It seems to this court that the appellant is concluded by the decree under which the appellee McLaughlin purchased her house and lot.

Her petition in that case alleged that her husband gave her the property, and McLaughlin’s purchase on the faith of that allegation, estops her to allege or prove the contrary. Then, according to the 17th section, article 4, chapter 28, Revised Statutes, she might alienate her interest, with consent of the donor, which was given to tbat decree.

Wherefore, the judgment dismissing her petition for reclamation is affirmed.

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

It seems to this court that the appellant is concluded by the decree under which the appellee McLaughlin purchased her house and lot.

Her petition in that case alleged that her husband gave her the property, and McLaughlin’s purchase on the faith of that allegation, estops her to allege or prove the contrary. Then, according to the 17th section, article 4, chapter 28, Revised Statutes, she might alienate her interest, with consent of the donor, which was given to tbat decree.

Wherefore, the judgment dismissing her petition for reclamation is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ky. Op. 614, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-mclaughlin-kyctapp-1869.