Thomas v. Rowlett
This text of 8 Ky. Op. 578 (Thomas v. Rowlett) 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.
Opinion
Opinion by
The conveyance from Jones is to America Rowlett, her heirs and assigns forever, free from the use and control of her said husband, and the warranty is in the same words. The .language is such as to create a separate estate. The mortgage to the appellant does not, therefore, bind Mrs. Rowlett.
The first amended petition offered, at most only sets out a state of facts, which tended to estop Mrs. Rowlett to claim the land as separate estate. But as a feme covert, under the provisions of the Revised Statutes, could not sell or .encumber her separate estate, neither could she divest herself of the right to claim it by such acts or representations as would, in cases of persons free from the statutory disability, create an estoppel in pais. The court, therefore, did not err in refusing to allow this amended answer to be filed. The second amended answer was not offered until the cause was ready for hearing, and no explanation was offered for the delay. We cannot say that the court abused a sound discretion in refusing at the time to allow it to be filed.
As Mrs. Rowlett and her husband and Bourne are the only parties made appellees, we need not inquire as to the propriety of the action of the court, as to co-sureties of appellant.
No attack was made upon the conveyance to Bourne.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Ky. Op. 578, 1876 Ky. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-rowlett-kyctapp-1876.