Wash v. Medley

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Wash v. Medley

31 Ky. 269, 1 Dana 269, 1833 Ky. LEXIS 74

DecidedMay 8, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Ky. 269 (Wash v. Medley) 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

Wash v. Medley, 31 Ky. 269, 1 Dana 269, 1833 Ky. LEXIS 74 (Ky. Ct. App. 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The deed operated as a delivery of the slaves and personalty ; and as the parties lived together in the same iamny, the fact that no visible alteration in the actual possession accompanied and followed the deed, cannot be deemed, per se, fraudulent. It was a fact proper for tbe consideration of the jury. And whatever might be the proper deduction from the fact that every article of [270]*270a large estate, even clown to ten pieces of bacon, was in-eluded in the deed, the jury, and not the court, should l>ave decided upon the fact together with all the other ^acls' Consequently, we are of the opinion, that the circuit court erred, in instructing the jury that “ if they believed the evidence, the deed was fraudulent against the creditors, Triplett and his assignee.”

Wherefore, the judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

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.

The deed operated as a delivery of the slaves and personalty ; and as the parties lived together in the same iamny, the fact that no visible alteration in the actual possession accompanied and followed the deed, cannot be deemed, per se, fraudulent. It was a fact proper for tbe consideration of the jury. And whatever might be the proper deduction from the fact that every article of [270]*270a large estate, even clown to ten pieces of bacon, was in-eluded in the deed, the jury, and not the court, should l>ave decided upon the fact together with all the other ^acls' Consequently, we are of the opinion, that the circuit court erred, in instructing the jury that “ if they believed the evidence, the deed was fraudulent against the creditors, Triplett and his assignee.”

Wherefore, the judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Ky. 269, 1 Dana 269, 1833 Ky. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wash-v-medley-kyctapp-1833.