Case ID: ky_145/html/0799-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "William Rogers Clay, Commissioner", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kelley’s Exor., et al. v. Pettus, et al.
    (Decided December 13, 1911.)
    Appeal from Christian Circuit Court.
    Held, that the original opinion in this case decided November 5, 1910, should have been reversed and that the judgment of October 26, 1910, was properly affirmed. -As both appellants and appellees won in part and lost in part, only one-half of the cost of the transcript of the appeal should be taxed as costs and paid by appellee. Judgment of October 26, 1910, is affirmed and judgment of November 5, 1910, is reversed and cause remanded for proceedings consistent with our former opinion.
    Note by Reporter — Original case decided October 3, 1911. See Advance Sheet No. 3, page 250 (Vol. 145).
    SELDEN Y. TRIMBLE, TRIMBLE & BELL for appellant.
    R. O. HESTER, J. B. ALL/ENSWORTH for appellee.
   Modified and Extended Opinion of the Court by

William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

Reversing.

In onr former opinion we overlooked the fact that there were two judgments appealed from, one rendered October 26, 1910, settling the question of the ownership of the land in controversy, and the other rendered November 5, 1910, being a personal judgment against Walter Kelly, executor. Being of the opinion that the question of the ownership of the land was properly decided, but that the personal judgment against Walter Kelly, executor, was erroneous, it follows that the judgment of October 26, 1910, should be affirmed, while the judgment of November 5,1910, should have been reversed.

As both appellants and appellees won in part and lost in part, we conclude that only half of the cost of the transcript of this appeal should be taxed as costs and paid by appellees.

Judgment of October 26,1910, is affirmed. Judgment of November 5,1910, is reversed and cause remanded for proceedings consistent with our former opinion.