« 이전계속 »
pany against W. S. Hazel. From the judg. F. T. GUNTHER GROCERY CO. v. HAZEL.* ment, plaintiff appeals. Judgment reversed, (Court of Appeals of Kentucky. March 12,
and cause remanded with directions to enter 1918.)
judgment for defendant. 1. CORPORATIONS 319(7)-REDEMPTION AND E. B. Anderson, of Owensboro, for appelRETIREMENT OF PREFERRED STOCK — SUFFI- lant. Birkhead & Wilson and Ben D. Ringo, CIENCY OF EVIDENCE.
In suit between a corporation and its for-all of Owensboro, for appellee. mer president for settlement, evidence held to show that $10,000 of preferred stock reissued to
CLARKE, J. The appellant is a corporathe president for his common stock had been redeemed and retired by the company in its set- tion, doing a wholesale grocery business in tlement with certain preferred stockholders. the city of Owensboro, and from October, 2. CORPORATIONS Omw 101 REPRESENTATION 1902, until July, 1907, the appellee, W. S.
OF COMPANY AND SELF BY PRESIDENT IN Hazel, was its president and in complete SETTLEMENT.
In making settlement of the differences be- control of the business. In August, 1910, tween preferred stock holders and a corporation, three years after he had severed his conand also the difference between the stockholders nection with the corporation, it filed this ac and himself, the president of the corporation tion at law against him, seeking to recover could not represent both himself and the corporation.
numerous amounts which it was alleged he 3. CORPORATIONS C314(2)-BINDING FORCE owed the corporation, growing out of various
OF OFFICER'S ACTS-ADVERSE INTEREST IN transactions with and for the corporation OFFICER.
during the time he was its president. He The participation of the manager of a corporation with its president in a compromise with answered, denying liability for most of the cortain preferred stockholders, and the execu- items set up in the petition, and filed a countion by him of the corporation's note to a bank terclaim for a large amount, covering numerfor an amount of money, had no binding force upon the corporation, where, in the settiement ous other transactions had with and for the in which the president of the corporation was corporation while he was its president. It is interested, the manager was beneficially inter- manifest that, though the action had been ested with him, acting with him in represent- begun at law, it was in reality, and was so ing their joint interests, which were hostile to the corporation's and where he subsequently recognized by both parties, a suit for a setsurrendered whatever interest he had in the tlement by the corporation against its prestpreferred stock secured to the president. dent, covering many and intricate transac4. CORPORATIONS Om314(2) SETTLEMENT BY tions during a period of about five years;
PRESIDENT REPRESENTING His Own Hos-an.), by agreement, the action was transferTILE INTEREST-BINDING FORCE.
A corporation's settlement with its prefer- red to the equity docket and referred to the red stockholders is binding upon the corporation master for an accounting. Much proof was and its president as a settlement of their dif- taken by depositions, and the master filed ferences with the stockholders and the redemp. his report covering every item claimed by tion by the corporation of the matured preferred stock of the stockholders, but is without either party against the other, which, upon force as between the corporation and its presi- balancing, showed plaintiff was indebted to dent, who, in the settlement, represented the the defendant in the sum of $2,441.63, with hostile interests of the corporation and himself to his profit.
interest from May 1, 1916. Both parties 5. CORPORATIONS m316(1) SETTLEMENT
filed exceptions to the report and, upon final WITH PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS EFFECTED hearing, the chancellor overruled the excepBY PRESIDENT-MUTUAL BENEFIT to PRESI- tions of both parties and rendered judgment DENT AND COMPANY-MUTUAL AND PROPOR- in conformance with the master's report. TIONATE CONTRIBUTION.
Where a corporation's settlement with pre- From that judgment, the plaintiff has apferred stockholders holding matured stock, ef- pealed. fected by the company's president, was mutual
The correctness of the master's findings ly advantageous to the corporation and its pres- with reference to numerous items is contestident, in the adjustment of their differences growing out of such settlement, it is equitable ed here by appellant, but upon a careful er. and just that each should contribute in propor- amination of all the evidence relative theretion to the benefits received.
to we find that the report is fully sustained 6. CORPORATIONS E 68 REDEMPTION
OF | by the evidence, except as to two items PREFERRED STOCK-PURCHASE BY COMPANY which were involved in a single transaction. -STATUTES.
The division of capital stock into common As it would extend this opinion to an unreaand preferred being authorized by Ky. St. 8 sonable length and serve no useful purpose 564, the preferred stock of a grocery corpora- to do so, we shall not review the testimony tion', issued under promise to redeem it at par with reference to such contested items, as value with interest at 6 per cent. after six years from date of incorporation, was after maturity, we approve the findings of the master, but as against the corporation and owners of com- shall confine ourselves to a consideration of mon stock, the rights of no creditor being in- the items as to which we think he was in volved, merely an indebtedness which the company was bound to redeem, despite section 544, error. These items are: The claim of plainprohibiting a corporation from purchasing its tiff against defendant for contribution to an capital stock.
attorney's fee, paid by plaintiff for legal Appeal from Circuit Court, Daviess County. services rendered in connection with a setAction by the F. T. Gunther Grocery Com- tlement with Mrs. Maggie Brodie and memOm For other case: sce same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
*Rehearing denied May 14, 1918.
bers of her family, who were the owners of and whereas, the said E. T. Franks owns ten $10,000 of the preferred stock, and $1,000 or shares of the par value of one hundred dollars the common stock in the corporation; and the per share of the common stock of the F. T.
Gunther Grocery Company, and the said Mrs. claim of defendant against plaintiff for $2,- Maggie Brodio owns eighty shares of the pre000, growing out of the same transaction. ferred stock of the F. T. Gunther Grocery The $10,000 of preferred stock was issued Company of the par value of one hundred dol
lars per share and the said Robert Brodie owns to the Brodies on October 27, 1902. This
ten shares of the par value of one hundred dolstock by its terms provided for dividends at lars per share of the preferred stock of the the rate of 6 per centum per annum, pay- said grocery company, and the said A. J. able semi-annually; for its redemption by in said company of the par value of one hun.
Brodie owns ten shares of said preferred stock the corporation at any time, at its option, dred dollars per share; and whereas, no diviafter two years from the date of the com- dends have been paid on any cf said preferred pany's organization, which was March 22, or common stock and there is a controversy
pending between said parties concerning the va1901: that the owner might demand its re- lidity of a portion of said stock and as to whethdemption at any time after six years from er dividends have been earned thereon; and the date of incorporation; and it was further whereas, all the parties hereto desire to setprovided that, upon redemption, the company connected with said stock, notes, dividend checks
tle said controversy and every disputed question would pay to the owner the par value of the and counterclaim filed by said Hazel in said acstock, with 6 per centum interest from its tion, and have agreed to settle same upon the date. The company had not paid any divi- terms and conditions hereinafter stated:
"Now, therefore, the said Mrs. Maggie Brodie, dends upon either its preferred or common
Robert Brodie, and A. J. Brodie have this day stock; and the Brodies, in the exercise of surrendered to the said F. T. Gunther Grocery their right to demand a redemption, after Company the said ten thousand dollars of preMarch 22, 1907, were demanding of the com
ferred stock, it being understood that they are
not to be held responsible in any event for said rany, and threatening suit to enforce, a re- stock or dividends claimed to be due thereon, demption of the preferred stock owned by and said Mrs. Brodie, said Robert Brodie, said them. On October 22, 1902, appellee had A. J. Brodie and said E. T. Franks have surpurchased some common stock in the cor- dividend checks hereinbefore set out and the
rendered and delivered to said company said poration from Mrs. Brodie and executed to notes and collateral stock declared on in said her his note for $2,000 in payment there- equity action in favor of Mrs. Brodie against for, and she had sued him to enforce the cold said Hazel, and the said E. T. Franks has this lection of the note, and he was resisting pay- on him said ten shares of the common stock
day transferred and assigned without recourse ment upon the ground that he had been over- of said company to said W. S. Hazel, all of reached in the purchase of the stock, upon which is in consideration of the sum of fourteen account of which he asserted a counterclaim said F. T. Gunther Grocery Company and W.
thousand dollars ($14,000.00) this day paid by for $2,400 damages. On May 8, 1907, a com- S. Hazel to the said Mrs. Maggie Brodie, Robpromise was effected between the Brodies, crt Brodie, A. J. Brodie and E. T. Franks, the on the one side, and plaintiff and defendant, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. The upon the other side, in which all claims as- edges receipt of said certificates and preferred
said F. T. Gunther Grocery Company acknowlserted by or against the Brodies were settled. stock_and said unpaid dividend checks. The In this settlement, the appellee represented said W. S. Hazel now acknowledges receipt of not only himself, but also the corporation as said notes and collateral stock sued on in said its president. This settlenient was reduced shares of the common stock of said grocery com
equity action, and also the receipt of said ten to writing, and is as follows:
pany assigned to him by said Franks. The said “This agrecment maile and entered into this dismissed settled, each party to pay his own
equity action and the counterclaim are to be the 18th day of May, 1907, between Mrs. Mag- cost and with leave to withdraw the notes and gie Brodie, Robert Brodie, A. J. Brodie and E. stock filed. T. Franks, of the one part, and the F. T. Gun
“This instrument is now executed to show ther Grocery Company and W. S. Hazel, of the that all said matters have been and are now other part, all of Owensboro, Kentucky; wit- fully settled and adjusted, the said checks, pesseth: That whereas, the said Mrs. Maggie notes and stock being delivered and said money Brodie now has a suit pending in the Daviess paid in full settlement and satisfaction thereof. circuit court against W. S. Hazel for the recov
"Executed in duplicate this the date and ery of the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.
year first herein written. Maggie Brodie, by 00) with interest thereon; and whereas, the Robert Brodie. Robert Brodie. A. J. Brodie, notes are secured by thirty shares of the com- by Robert Brodie. E. T. Franks, The F. T. mon stock of the F. T. Gunther Grocery Com- Gunther Grocery Co., by W. S. Hazel, Pres. pany transferred as collateral by said Hazel; W. S. Hazel." and whereas, in said action said W. S. Hazel answer pleading a counterclaim
Of the $14,000 paid to the Brodies, the degrowing out of an alleged deficiency in the val- fendant paid $2,000 by his personal check ue of certain stocks purchased by said defend- and $12,000 was procured from the Bank of ant from said plaintiff in the F. T. Gunther Commerce of Owensboro, for which defendGrocery Company; and whereas, the said Mrs. Brodie, E. T. Franks, Robert Brodie and A. J. ant and C. A. Rogers, at the time manager Brodie hold certain dividend checks against of the corporation, executed their joint note, the F. T. Gunther Grocery Company which to secure which they deposited as collateral have been protested for nonpayment and as follows: One in favor of Robert Brodie, dated the $10,000 of preferred stock surrendered October 22, 1902, for $184.00, another in fa- by the Brodies, and common stock owned by vor of Mrs. Maggie Brodie, dated October 22, defendant. 1902, for $175.00, one in favor of E. T. Franks, of the same date, for $40.00, and one in favor
 On July 19, 1907, defendant sold to R. of A. J. Brodie, of the same date, for $40.00; / S. Hughes and C. A. Rogers 245 shares of the
has filed an
stock of the corporation owned by him at, tempted to do so representing both himself par for which they paid him $24,500, and and the corporation, and this he could not with $12,000 of which defendant paid off the do; nor had there ever been a ratification note for that amount to the Bank of Com- by the corporation of any pretended settle merce, to which was attached as collateral ment or agreement that the defendant may part of the stock he was selling to Hughes have attempted between himself and the and Rogers and the original certificates for corporation in this matter. We have not the preferred stock formerly owned by the overlooked the fact that C. A. Rogers, who Brodies. Defendant then, and not until then, was then the manager of the corporation, canceled the Brodie stock, and as president was a party to the Brodie compromise and to of the corporation issued to himself certifi. the execution of the note to the bank for cates for $10,000 of preferred stock, and $12,000, but his participation in that transthereupon resigned as president and director action has no binding force upon the corof the corporation. A few days previous to poration, because it is clearly shown that in this transaction, the corporation had amend that transaction he was beneficially interested ed its articles of incorporation, by which with the defendant, acting with him in repwas authorized the reissue of the $10,000 of resenting their joint interests which were preferred stock, which, we think the evidence hostile to the interests of their principal in conclusively shows, had been redeemed and an attempt to acquire for their joint account retired by the company in the settlement with the preferred stock owned by the Brodies, the Brodies.
and that he subsequently surrendered whatThe nex. icowe nf $10,000 of preferred stock, ever interest he had therein to the defendant. which the defendant oli that was acquired, So Rogers' participation in that settlement was a part of the $24,500 that he receiveu may be entirely disregarded. for his common stock, and in this way: 14) Both plaintiff and defendant are here The $24,500 was paid to him by Hughes in seeking the assistance of a court of equity two checks, one for $12,000 and the other to adjust their unsettled differences with reffor $12,500. With the $12,000 check he paid erence to the Brodie settlement, and both off the $12,000 note to the Bank of Commerce, must do equity, and neither is entitled to an and received in lieu thereof the $10,000 in advantage over the other. The corporation preferred stock in the corporation. So out of has neither recognized nor ratified any ad. the transaction with Hughes and Rogers he justment between it and defendant relative had $12,500 in money and $10,000 of pre- to the Brodie settlement; it has, however, ferred stock in the corporation, and, con- recognized and ratified that settlement in so ceiving that he in some way had been im- far as the Brodies were concerned. That posed upon by Hughes and Rogers in the agreement, by its terms, shows that the cortransaction with them, he demanded of them poration in fact redeemed the preferred stock payment of an additional $2,000, which they owned by the Brodies, and that the defend: refused to pay, and he entered 'suit against ant did not then become the purchaser of them for that amount; but, as they had paid that stock. This conclusion is further suphim $24,500 the full amount they had agreed ported by the fact of the issuance to defendto pay him, it is manifest that, although he ant of new certificates of stock on July 19, was seemingly $2,000 short in the transac- 1907, for the Brodie preferred stock and the tion, having only $12,500 in money and $10,- subsequent redemption by the compan, 000 in stock, he had no claim against Hughes this stock as thus issued. In other wor's, and (Rogers for the discrepancy. It is like the Brodie settlement is binding upon te wise manifest that whatever claim, any, company and the defendant as a settlemet he had against any one for the $2,000 was of their differences with the Brodies and the against the plaintiff corporation growing redemption by the company of the matured out of the execution of the $12,000 note to preferred stock owned by the Brodies, but the bank in the Brodie settlement. The claim is of no force whatever as between the comfor this $2,000 is the principal item in de pany and the defendant, because he could not fendant's counterclaim, and that this claim in that settlement represent the hostile inwas sustained by the report of the master and terests of the company and himself to his judgment of the chancellor is the chief com- profit. Thompson on Corporations, vol. 11, plaint of plaintiff upon appeal.
$8 1216, 1220; Covington & Lexington R. Co. [2, 3] In the Brodie compromise, there was v. Bowler's Heirs, 9 Bush, 468; Main Jellico a settlement of the differences between the Mountain Coal Co. v. Lotspeich, 20 S. W. 377, Brodies and the corporation and also the 14 Ky. Law Rep. 595; Blake v. Ray, 110 Ky. differences between the Brodies and the de-705, 62 S. W. 531, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 84. fendant; and in that settlement the defend  The facts with reference to the Brodie ant attempted to represent, not only himself, settlement and the benefits derived therefrom but also the corporation. There had never by plaintiff and defendant are clearly proved, been any settlement between the corporation and it is not a matter of difficulty to deterand defendant of that transaction except mine the exact amount each should contribute in so far as the defendant may have at to the $14,000 paid to the Brodies. That set
stunni Elita th biz : 3 Foe ir pritet I joint y the cendere
tlement was mutually advantageous to plain
Amounts Due Defendant by Plaintif.
to defendant's account at New
Farmers' & Traders' Bank....... $ 170 50
Sundry small items allowed by contribute in proportion to the benefits re the commissioner
260 10 ceived. Under the terms of the issue of the Amount due on Brodle settlement 1,877 44 preferred stock to the Brodies, they had a
$2,308 04 claim against the corporation for $10,000 with Amounts Due Plaintiff by Defendant, simple interest at 6 per cent., amounting to Greenwell notes collected by de$12,700, the semiannual dividends provided
$ 498 00 Frank Meis account...
Hazel fendant for $2,000, with 5 per cent. interest
& Zeigler warehouse count
the hat sa
dant . Court de cences Cent, 21: sentia
ettlement tres s bar
pretre bat të ne pure
is furi nance to ock on Ja
stoc an he couran In other te nding upon
57 40 thereon from October 22, 1902, subject to his Open account
1,036 37 counterclaim for damages for deficiency in value of the stock she had sold him and for
Net amount due defendant from plaintiff $1,271 17 which he executed his note. As all of the  Plaintiff urges most earnestly that secitems involved in that settlement, except this tion 544, Kentucky Statutes, which prohibits note, are for shares of stock in the corpora- a corporation from purchasing its capital tion, and as this note was given in payment stock, rendered illegal the purchase by plainfor such stock purchased at par, we shall re tiff of the $10,000 of preferred stock owned gard it as so much stock purchased on that by the Brodies, and therefore it must be held date and disregard the interest due thereon; that, in the Brodie settlement, defendant purand the defendant was benefited by the can-chased that stock at $12,000, for which he cellation of his note for which he obtained gave his individual note to the bank, but that $2,000 of stock, and by the acquisition of an stock, issued pursuant to the company's artiadditional $1,000 of common stock from the cles of incorporation as preferred stock and Brodies. So in that settlement defendant got by its terms due and payable, was redeemable $3,000 at par of the company's stock, and the by the company, and its redemption was not company retired its stock of the par value, at such a purchase as is prohibited by the statthat time, of $12,700, making a total of $15,- ute referred to. The division of its capital 700 of stock, at par, that the Brodies surren- stock into common and preferred stock was dered for $14,000, and for the services ren- authorized by section 564, Kentucky Statutes, dered by the attorneys representing both and the preferred stock of this corporation by plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff paid $500. its terms and pursuant to the articles of inOn the basis of this settlement, $15,700 for corporation was, after maturity at least, as $14,500, the valuation of the stock in the cor- against the corporation and owners of the poration was $92.35 per share, instead of common stock, the rights of no creditors being $100, the par value. Of the $14,500 paid to involved, but an indebtedness against the the Brodies and the attorneys, plaintiff company which it was bound to redeem. 7 R. should have contributed in proportion to ben- C. L. 200; 10 Cyc. 571; Rider v. Delker & efits received, that is, $12,700 at $92.35, which Sons Co., 145 Ky. 634, 140 S. W. 1011, 39 L amounts to $11,729.50, and the defendant, R. A. (N. S.) 1007 and note. $2,770.50; but plaintiff paid only the $500 at Wherefore the judgment is reversed and torney's fee, and defendant gave his personal cause remanded, with directions to enter check for $2,000, and for the remaining $12,- judgment for defendant for the sum of $1,000 executed his note, which he subsequently 271.17, with interest thereon from May 1, paid. So that, of the $14,000 thus paid by 1916. defendant, $11,729.50, less $500 attorney's fee paid by the corporation, or $11,229.50, was the obligation of the plaintiff, and of this sum it
FITZPATRICK'S COMMITTEE v. has repaid to defendant, $10,000 in preferred
DUNDON. stock issued to him on July 19, 1907, which he
SAME v. KINSOLVING. agreed to accept at par in the trade with (Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
March 15, Hughes and Rogers. Therefore, as a net re
1918.) sult of the Brodie settlement, the company
1. INSANE PERSONS 74-HIRING OF 'AT
TORNEYS-AMOUNT OF FEES. was justly indebted to defendant in the sum
Where an incompetent hires more attorneys of $1,229.50, which, with interest to May 1, than are reasonably necessary to fully protect 1916, the date upon which interest on all oth his interest, no recovery can be had for the er claims was adjusted by the
excessive services, but a single allowance may
master, be made and apportioned. amounts to $1,877.44. So, charging the plain- 2. APPEAL AND ERROR 1040(10) HARMtiff with this sum and adopting the other LESS ERROR-PLEADING. items in controversy as allowed by the mas- torney should have stated that all of the services
If petition against incompetent by an atter, we have the following statement of ac- rendered by a number of attorneys were necescounts as of May 1, 1916:
sary for his defense, the overruling of a demurFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
*Rehearing denied May 10, 1918.
as a series Brodies and of the main be Brodia 6 et teen the use he olive
the best 3 himself a lie rationsmais
Lerinstao -69; Jain ich, S. 21. Rar, 1935
att Ready ce to the ne derirei testu re clean pa Tifficulty to date should number
rer was harmless, where the court required that, fied as committee and shortly thereafter inall the attorneys be made parties.
stituted an action in the Montgomery county 3. INSANE PERSONS Ow74–ATTORNEY FEES court to settle the estate of Fitzpatrick. In -COMPENSATION.
An attorney may receive reasonable fees for 1914, Hart resigned as Fitzpatrick's comreasonable and necessary services rendered an mittee and the appellant, A. L. Tipton, sucincompetent, and he may recover . where the ceeded him in that capacity, and as plaintiff services have been faithfully and intelligently performed, although unsuccessful and not bene in the settlement suit. On October 4, 1912, ficial.
17 months after the inquest, Fitzpatrick in4. INSANE PERSONS 74-LEGAL SERVICES-stituted an action in the Montgomery county Good FAITH.
court seeking to have it adjudged that he had Efforts of attorneys to have an incompetent declared sane showed good faith, there been restored to his senses; but the judgment half the local physicians said he was sane and was to the effect that Fitzpatrick was at that there were four hung juries, and one declaring time a person of unsound mind and incompehim sane and one declaring him insane.
tent to manage his estate. The appellees 5. INSANE PERSONS 74LEGAL SERVICES, APPROVAL OF CHANCELLOR,
Dennis Dundon and W. B. Kinsolving did not Right of attorneys to compensation for ef- represent him in that proceeding. forts to have an incompetent declared to have
Again, in the fall of 1913, Fitzpatrick inregained his sanity were not defeated by failure to first get the approval of the chancellor, stituted a second action in the Montgomery where the chancellor consolidated the suits with county court in which he again sought to the settlement proceedings and tried the cases, have it adjudged that he had been restored under Ky. St. $ 2149, relating to care of luna
to his senses. tics, because such action on the part of the
In this proceeding Fitzpatrick chancellor constituted consent and approval; was represented by the appellees Dundon and the duty to obtain the approval of the chan- Kinsolving, as his attorneys. That case was cellor in such cases being analogous to that im- tried six times—thrice in the Montgomery posed upon a guardian whose action, unauthorized in advance, will be subsequently approved county court and an equal number of times if it be such that the chancellor would have in the circuit court, the first two trials in given his approval in case it had been asked the county court resulted in hung juries. in advance. 6. INSANE PERSONS Cam 74-LEGAL SERVICES,
Upon the third trial, however, the verdict and EMPLOYMENT-DUTIES.
judgment of the county court declared that The legal effect of an employment of coun- Fitzpatrick had been restored to his senses, sel by an incompetent is that they be paid a and from that judgment Fitzpatrick's wife reasonable fee for services rendered, not that they try the case to completion under’a contract and his committee prosecuted an appeal to for a fixed fee, nor after their services are no the Montgomery circuit court. longer desired or requested.
The first two trials in the circuit court re7. PAYMENT 67(4)—CHECKS-CONCLUSIVE- sulted in hung juries; but in the last trial in
A check in handwriting of and indorsed by that court there was a verdict and judgment payee attorney, “In full of account to date,” is that Fitzpatrick was a person of unsound conclusive as to all legal services to date there- mind and incompetent to manage his estate. of, in the absence of other evidence. 8. EVIDENCE Cw18–JUDICIAL Notice-Com- sented Fitzpatrick in the three trials in the
The appellees Dundon and Kinsolving reprePENSATION OF ATTORNEY.
In absence of contract, value of attorney's county court, and also in the first trial in the services are largely to be fixed from the observa- circuit court, and shortly after the first trial tion and experience of the judges themselves.
in the circuit court they applied to the Court Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery of Appeals for a writ prohibiting the circuit County.
judge from taking jurisdiction of the appeal Consolidated suits by Dennis Dundon and from the Montgomery county court to the by W. B. Kinsolving, respectively, against Montgomery circuit court upon the ground the lunacy committee of W. T. Fitzpatrick. that no appeal could be taken from the coun. Judgments for plaintiffs, and defendant ap- ty court to the circuit court, in such a case. peals. Affirmed as to Dundon, and reversed The Court of Appeals, however, denied the as to Kinsolving, with direction to enter a writ. See Fitzpatrick y. Young, 160 Ky. 5, reduced judgment.
169 S. W. 530. On the second trial in the See, also, 160 Ky. 5, 169 S. W. 530.
circuit court Fitzpatrick was represented by Robert H. Winn, W. B. White, and C. W. Dundon, John G. Winn, and R. A. Chiles as Nesbitt, all of Mt. Sterling, for appellant. his attorneys, and in the third trial in the cirJno. G. Winn and R. A. Chiles, both of Mt. cuit court Fitzpatrick was represented by E. Sterling, George Du Relle, of Louisville, and J. Hobdy alone. David D. Cline, of Paris, for appellees.
On August 26, 1915, the appellee Dundon
instituted an action in the Montgomery cirMILLER, J. On May 20, 1911, W. T. Fitz- cuit court in which he sought to recover patrick, a successful farmer and business man judgment against Fitzpatrick's committee for of Mt. Sterling, was found to be a person of the sum of $3,000 for the legal services above unsound mind and incompetent to manage recited, and for the further sum of $78.66 his estate, by an inquest and judgment of the expenses, subject to a credit of $100 which Montgomery county court. A. S. Hart quali- I had been paid to him by Fitzpatrick, and on
Fan For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes