Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Citation
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Parent Document
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1967-02-03
Other Sections in This Document (40)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
Full Text
497 charsThis contract had been signed by Anna Hengehold and accepted in writing by Mathews, who also paid $500 to Hawkins & Chamberlain Real Estate Brokers to bind the bargain. Being unable to obtain the loan of $6,000, Mathews sued to recover the $500 paid. The opinion recites that the Mathews were people of modest means and that the idea of the loan originated with the real estate brokers. But they could not secure the loan and could not carry out the contract. Holding for Mathews, this court said: