Case ID: sw2d_283/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

H. W. MARVIN, Appellant, v. Marie A. BLANFORD et al., Appellees. Marie A. BLANFORD et al., Appellants, v. H. W. MARVIN, Appellee.
    Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
    Oct. 14, 1955.
    Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, Robt. P. Hobson, Louisville, James A. Hall, La-Grange, for appellant and cross-appellee.
    Thomas F. Manby, Clark & Manby, La-Grange, Edward A. Dodd, Dodd & Dodd, Louisville, for appellee and cross-appellant.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal was not filed under KRS 21.080, but since the amount actually involved is less than $2,500 we are treating it as if it had been filed under that statute. The judgment appealed from covered three promissory notes, one for $2,500 and two for $600 each, or a total of $3,700, less a credit of $505.59, leaving a net balance of $3,194.41. The appellant contends that the $505.59 credit should have been for $600, thus leaving at issue the net amount of $94.41. Further credit of $83.58 was allowed which the appellant maintains should' have been for the amount of $1,847.74, thus leaving the net amount in dispute o£ $1,764.16 on this item. The trial court allowed $212.70 for grazing a second consignment of cattle, and the appellant claims the court should have allowed $355.16 for this item. However, the appellees and' cross-appellants contend nothing should have been allowed for this item. Thus, there is a dispute over $355.16 concerning, this particular credit. The three net amounts in dispute on this appeal, $94.41, $1,764.16 and $355.16, amount to a total of $2,213.73.

We have examined the record and conclude that the trial court’s findings were substantially correct, CR 52.01, and the judgment is affirmed on both the appeal and the cross-appeal.