Bowling's Adm'x v. Davis

• Decision Date: 15 February 1898
• Citation: Bowling's Adm'x v. Davis, 103 Ky. 187, 44 S.W. 643 (Ky. Ct. App. 1898)
• Parties: BOWLING'S ADM'X v. DAVIS et al.
• Writing for the Court: WHITE, J.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

44 S.W. 643

103 Ky. 187

BOWLING'S ADM'X v. DAVIS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 15, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Carter county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by William Bowling's administratrix against Jonathan Davis and another to enforce a judgment against certain personal property. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Modified.

Thomas D. Theobald and George W. Armstrong, for appellant.

Frank Prater and Thomas W. Mitchell, for appellees.

WHITE J.

In 1881, appellant's intestate, William Bowling, recovered judgment in the Carter circuit court against Jonathan Davis one of the appellees, for $215 and interest and costs. An execution was issued on said judgment, and in 1886 returned "No property found," by the sheriff of Carter county. This action was begun in 1893, on the return of "No property," by appellant against appellee Jonathan Davis and his son Henry Davis, also appellee. The petition alleged these facts of the judgment, execution, and return and death of William Bowling, and the appointment and qualification of the administratrix, and also alleged that Henry Davis has and holds certain property, and pretends to own same, when in fact and truth it is the property of Jonathan Davis, and is held by said Henry Davis, a son, to defraud the creditors of Jonathan Davis. An attachment was sued out and levied on a crop of tobacco and several head of cattle. Henry Davis filed answer, claiming the tobacco and all the cattle, and in his answer disclosed the fact that he was indebted to Jonathan Davis in the sum of $20. Henry Davis gave a forthcoming bond for the attached property. Upon the question of the ownership of the property,-that is, whether it was Henry Davis' or Jonathan Davis' property,-much proof was taken; many witnesses were examined. The case was tried by the chancellor, who adjudged the property to be that of Henry Davis, except the two cows, and discharged the levy of the attachment, and quashed the forthcoming bond executed by Henry Davis; adjudged that Henry Davis pay to plaintiff the sum of $25, admitted to be due Jonathan Davis, the same to be credited on the debt due appellant. The judgment utterly fails to dispose of the two cows at all, except that it quashes the bond for their forthcoming, but does not discharge the levy as to them.

There is no question of exemption presented in the record. We have read the evidence in the record carefully,...