Vance v. King
| Decision Date | 20 March 1959 |
| Citation | 322 S.W.2d 485 |
| Parties | Helen Woodward VANCE, Committee of Thelma King, Incompetent, Appellant, v. Alvin KING et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Davis Williams, Munfordville, for appellant.
Terry L. Hatchett, Glasgow, H. H. Wilson, Munfordville, for appellees.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
Helen Woodward Vance, as committee for Thelma King, incompetent, brought action against Alvin King, former committee for Thelma, and the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, as surety on his bond, seeking to surcharge his accounts as committee and to recover approximately $4,000 alleged to have been unlawfully expended by him out of the funds of the incompetent's estate. On October 26, 1957, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint as to the surety, but holding that the complaint stated a claim for relief as against Alvin King, and continuing the action against him. The plaintiff filed notice of appeal from that order, and is attempting here to prosecute that appeal.
On December 5, 1957, the plaintiff tendered an amended complaint against both Alvin King and the surety, and moved for leave to file it. On December 7 the court overruled this motion as concerned the surety, but sustained it as to Alvin King. The plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal from that order, and seeks to prosecute that appeal along with the appeal from the order of October 26.
The case involves a number of interesting questions, such as: (1) May the circuit court, in the absence of any objection by the defendants, entertain an action to surcharge a settlement when the plaintiff previously has filed exceptions to the settlement in the county court and the county court has not yet ruled on the exceptions; (2) when a person who has filed exceptions to a settlement in the county court does not insist upon a ruling on the exceptions, but instead commences an action in the circuit court to surcharge the settlement, and the circuit court entertains the action without objection, may the county court thereafter proceed to rule upon the exceptions and enter an order as to the liability of the committee and his surety, such as will be binding in the circuit court action; and (3) when a committee pays out funds of the incompetent's estate pursuant to a valid judgment against the estate, but the nature of the obligation upon which the judgment was based is such that the committee, because of his personal relationship to the incompetent, may have an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saylor v. General Motors Corp.
...and could not be appealed before a final disposition as to all of plaintiff's claims. Rule 54.02, Kentucky R.Civ.P.; See Vance v. King, 322 S.W.2d 485 (Ky.1959); Linkous v. Darch, 299 S.W.2d 120 (Ky.1957); cf. Commonwealth v. Dockery, 406 S.W.2d 392 (Ky. 1962). It cannot be said that the pl......
-
Morris v. Chaney
...the order recites that there is no just reason for delay and that the order is final as to the particular claim . . . ." Vance v. King, 322 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Ky. 1959) (citations omitted). This action is one in which there are multiple parties, and so the provisions of CR 54.02 are applicabl......
-
Tankersley v. Gilkey
...v. Field, 280 Ky. 727, 134 S.W.2d 648. The same is true as to the order overruling the motion for permission to file an answer. Vance v. King, Ky., 322 S.W.2d 485; Wilhelm v. Hendrick, 177 Ky. 296, 197 S.W. The order adjudging Tankersley to be in default did not finally dispose of the actio......
-
Lea v. Barren River Dist. Bd. of Health, 2011-CA-001827-MR
...final and appealable order," but did not state that there was no just reason for delay as required by CR 54.02. See also Vance v. King, 322 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Ky. 1959). Further, we find no basis in the judicial disqualification statute, KRS 26A.015, or otherwise, which would permit the takin......