Walter v. Clark

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Walter v. Clark

29 Ky. 629, 6 J.J. Marsh. 629, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 285

DecidedOctober 28, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ky. 629 (Walter v. Clark) 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

Walter v. Clark, 29 Ky. 629, 6 J.J. Marsh. 629, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 285 (Ky. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

.Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the court.

Isaac Clark, as assignee of John Shaver, filed a bill in chancery against Jacob Walter and John Curry, alleging that Shaver had assigned to him a note executed by them in March 1819, for $136 50 cents, payable in sixty days, which by accident had been so torn and defaced as to be illegible; (but scraps of which he exhibited) and praying for a decree for the amount of the note. Walter, Curry, and Shaver, were prayed to be made defendants. The two former answered, and impeached the consideration. A supplemental bill was filed, stating simply that, since the filing of the original, Shaver had died, and Clark had become his administrator.

The circuit court decreed to Clark, $291 19 cents.

The decree is erroneous:

1st, According to the allegations of the bill, as much as $291 could not have been due.

2nd. The assignment was denied, and there was no proof of it.

Denny for plaintiffs.

3rd. As the suit was brought in his own right as assignee, Clark could not be entitled to a decree, as administrator of the assignor; and his supplement does not appear to have been designed to change the attitude of the parties, but merely to shew why the assignor could not be served with process.

4th. It was neither admitted nor proved that Clark was administrator, or that Shaver was dead.

Wherefore the decree is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the bill without prejudice.

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

.Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the court.

Isaac Clark, as assignee of John Shaver, filed a bill in chancery against Jacob Walter and John Curry, alleging that Shaver had assigned to him a note executed by them in March 1819, for $136 50 cents, payable in sixty days, which by accident had been so torn and defaced as to be illegible; (but scraps of which he exhibited) and praying for a decree for the amount of the note. Walter, Curry, and Shaver, were prayed to be made defendants. The two former answered, and impeached the consideration. A supplemental bill was filed, stating simply that, since the filing of the original, Shaver had died, and Clark had become his administrator.

The circuit court decreed to Clark, $291 19 cents.

The decree is erroneous:

1st, According to the allegations of the bill, as much as $291 could not have been due.

2nd. The assignment was denied, and there was no proof of it.

Denny for plaintiffs.

3rd. As the suit was brought in his own right as assignee, Clark could not be entitled to a decree, as administrator of the assignor; and his supplement does not appear to have been designed to change the attitude of the parties, but merely to shew why the assignor could not be served with process.

4th. It was neither admitted nor proved that Clark was administrator, or that Shaver was dead.

Wherefore the decree is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the bill without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ky. 629, 6 J.J. Marsh. 629, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-v-clark-kyctapp-1831.