The Kentucky Law Reporter; A Monthly Magazine, Devoted to the Interests of the Legal Profession at Large and Particularly of the Kentucky Bar Volume 19, PT. 1 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1898 edition. Excerpt: ...This is specifically denied in the answer. The fault being in the petition, there was no error to the prejudice of appellant in this instruction. It is objected that the court erred in submitting to the jury the question whether or not appellant performed the labor alleged in the petition, upon the ground that the denial in the answer was that she performed any labor of any value for him at his special instance or 1'qil8EC, and that this was an admission that she performed the labor. The labor must have been performed at his request, or accepted by him, in order to make him respin: -ible. In the petition appellant averred an unpaid balance upon a loan made to appeliee at Asheville. Appellea denied that that sum, or any other sum, was lent him by her, and it is objected that the instruction upon this branch of the case limits the amount to be recovered to an unpaid balance of a loan made at Ashevllle. No evidence was submitted of any loan made elsewhere, and the limitation was, therefore, proper. Objeol ion is made to the tenth instruction, by which the jury were told "that while the law implies a promise to pay fol' property or materials furnished another at his instance or request, yet if the jury should izelieve from the evidence that the sweetmeats charged for, and ihe horse and rookaway charged for, in thc petition of the plaintifi wcrc furnishci by the plaintlfl' her daughter, Mrs. Baird or to the defendant as acts of kindness, no sug promise of payment is implied by law, and the jury in that event will find for the defendant on these items." The objection urged is that the person performing acts of kindness might very well expect to he paid for them, and the lzenetlciary might expect to make payment, and that, ...

R752

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles7520
Mobicred@R70pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1898 edition. Excerpt: ...This is specifically denied in the answer. The fault being in the petition, there was no error to the prejudice of appellant in this instruction. It is objected that the court erred in submitting to the jury the question whether or not appellant performed the labor alleged in the petition, upon the ground that the denial in the answer was that she performed any labor of any value for him at his special instance or 1'qil8EC, and that this was an admission that she performed the labor. The labor must have been performed at his request, or accepted by him, in order to make him respin: -ible. In the petition appellant averred an unpaid balance upon a loan made to appeliee at Asheville. Appellea denied that that sum, or any other sum, was lent him by her, and it is objected that the instruction upon this branch of the case limits the amount to be recovered to an unpaid balance of a loan made at Ashevllle. No evidence was submitted of any loan made elsewhere, and the limitation was, therefore, proper. Objeol ion is made to the tenth instruction, by which the jury were told "that while the law implies a promise to pay fol' property or materials furnished another at his instance or request, yet if the jury should izelieve from the evidence that the sweetmeats charged for, and ihe horse and rookaway charged for, in thc petition of the plaintifi wcrc furnishci by the plaintlfl' her daughter, Mrs. Baird or to the defendant as acts of kindness, no sug promise of payment is implied by law, and the jury in that event will find for the defendant on these items." The objection urged is that the person performing acts of kindness might very well expect to he paid for them, and the lzenetlciary might expect to make payment, and that, ...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

September 2013

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

September 2013

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 26mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

512

ISBN-13

978-1-236-84567-2

Barcode

9781236845672

Categories

LSN

1-236-84567-6



Trending On Loot