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
871 charsThe respondents also charge that mov-ant’s main defense is unsupported by the evidence. The record reveals that movant’s defenses or challenges to respondents’ right of recovery to be: (1) denial of the existence of a contract or agreement for the sale of the subject property; (2) any verbal contract for the sale and purchase of the subject property, if any existed, is barred by the statute of frauds; (3) an ongoing business arrangement with respondents; and (4) the money and other personal property received by movant were not received as a result of any contract for the purchase or sale of the subject property. The trial court, having viewed the witnesses and having evaluated their testimony, found that each of said defenses was supported by evidence of sufficient probative value likely to induce a conviction in the minds of the jurors, with which we concur.