Tucker v. Cutler

Sixth Circuit

Tucker v. Cutler

185 F.2d 853

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 13, 1950

DocketNo. 11153

StatusPublished

This text of 185 F.2d 853 (Tucker v. Cutler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tucker v. Cutler, 185 F.2d 853 (6th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was heard on the record, briefs and oral argument of counsel for respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that the Trial Judge was not in error in the construction which he gave to Section 372.040, Kentucky Revised Statutes, upon which appellee’s cause of action was based; and

That the Trial Judge was not in error in refusing to give an instruction to the jury upon the defense alleged in the sixth defense of the answer, alleging connivance and conspiracy by appellee with her husband; Section 525, Carroll’s Kentucky Civil Code of Practice; Orleans v. Platt, 99 U.S. 676, 678, 25 L.Ed. 404; Bird v. United States, 187 U.S. 118, 132, 23 S.Ct. 42, 47 L.Ed. 100.

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and is affirmed fo-r the reasons given by the District Judge in his opinions in the cases on the Covington, Kentucky Docket, styled Hartlieb v. Carr et al., D.C., 94 F.Supp. 279 and Salonen v. Farley et al., D.C., 82 F.Supp. 25.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was heard on the record, briefs and oral argument of counsel for respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that the Trial Judge was not in error in the construction which he gave to Section 372.040, Kentucky Revised Statutes, upon which appellee’s cause of action was based; and

That the Trial Judge was not in error in refusing to give an instruction to the jury upon the defense alleged in the sixth defense of the answer, alleging connivance and conspiracy by appellee with her husband; Section 525, Carroll’s Kentucky Civil Code of Practice; Orleans v. Platt, 99 U.S. 676, 678, 25 L.Ed. 404; Bird v. United States, 187 U.S. 118, 132, 23 S.Ct. 42, 47 L.Ed. 100.

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and is affirmed fo-r the reasons given by the District Judge in his opinions in the cases on the Covington, Kentucky Docket, styled Hartlieb v. Carr et al., D.C., 94 F.Supp. 279 and Salonen v. Farley et al., D.C., 82 F.Supp. 25.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 F.2d 853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-cutler-ca6-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack