Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Citation
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Parent Document
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1979-12-18
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
- Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (1979)
Full Text
1,079 charsThe order of the Ohio County Court was traversed and the whole of the proceeding was transferred to the Ohio Circuit Court. In addition to the traverse, movant filed a civil action in the Ohio Circuit Court against respondents on December 30, 1976, in which he sought immediate possession of the subject property, together with costs and all other proper and equitable relief. The respondents filed an answer in which they alleged that they had a contract with movant for the purchase of the subject property. The charge did not say whether the contract was written or oral. In addition, the respondents pleaded that “Plaintiff should be estopped to deny the existence of said contract and it should be enforced;” that they took possession of the subject property under the terms and conditions of a contract; that on several occasions they offered to pay the balance due on said contract but that movant refused to accept said payment; and that they made substantial improvements to the real property and that by reason thereof movant should be barred by laches from proceeding.