Young v. Booard's Heirs

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Young v. Booard's Heirs

2 Ky. Op. 541, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 488

DecidedOctober 19, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ky. Op. 541 (Young v. Booard's Heirs) 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

Young v. Booard's Heirs, 2 Ky. Op. 541, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 488 (Ky. Ct. App. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams :

It does not sufficiently appear from the evidence either that Gabriel Booard was insolvent at the time or that he made the conveyance of the house and lands to Alex McOause in contemplation of insolvency. The inference from the evidence is that his good and notes, accounts, &c., stock, negro slaves, &c., that he, then and afterwards, owed, were ample, had they been husbanded to pay all his debts.

After procuring the assignment to the benefit of his creditors by an agent of appellant’s subsequent to said conveyance they paid no further attention to the matter and as the trustees did not accept or act Booard was permitted to control, consume or squander the assets. The judgment dismissing appellant’s petition against Me-* Cause was therefore right and is affirmed.

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

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams :

It does not sufficiently appear from the evidence either that Gabriel Booard was insolvent at the time or that he made the conveyance of the house and lands to Alex McOause in contemplation of insolvency. The inference from the evidence is that his good and notes, accounts, &c., stock, negro slaves, &c., that he, then and afterwards, owed, were ample, had they been husbanded to pay all his debts.

After procuring the assignment to the benefit of his creditors by an agent of appellant’s subsequent to said conveyance they paid no further attention to the matter and as the trustees did not accept or act Booard was permitted to control, consume or squander the assets. The judgment dismissing appellant’s petition against Me-* Cause was therefore right and is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ky. Op. 541, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-booards-heirs-kyctapp-1868.