announced rule in Kentucky

1938We said (page 830, 198 S. W. page 218): “In the recent case of City of Monticello v. Bates, 169 Ky. 258 , 183 S. W. 555 , the court announced the rule that it was essential to the validity of municipal ordinances placing restrictions upon the lawful use of property that they specify the rules and conditions to he observed in such business and admit of the exercise of the privilege by all citizens alike who comply with such rules and conditions, and that they do not admit of the exercise, or of an opportunity for the exercise, of any arbitrary discrimination by the municipal authorities between

1938We said (page 830, 198 S. W. page 218): “In the recent case of City of Monticello v. Bates, 169 Ky. 258 , 183 S. W. 555 , the court announced the rule that it was essential to the validity of municipal ordinances placing restrictions upon the lawful use of property that they specify the rules and conditions to he observed in such business and admit of the exercise of the privilege by all citizens alike who comply with such rules and conditions, and that they do not admit of the exercise, or of an opportunity for the exercise, of any arbitrary discrimination by the municipal authorities between

2018Id. ; see also Walker , 382 S.W.3d at 870 ("[G]eneralized benefits that arise from a relationship between a grandparent and grandchild no longer have any role in determining grandparent visitation rights.").

1945Tway Coal Co., 204 Ky. 356 , 264 S. W. 743 , the court announced a rule, which to say the least broadened the rule laid down in the Russell case.

1945Tway Coal Co., 204 Ky. 356 , 264 S. W. 743 , the court announced a rule, which to say the least broadened the rule laid down in the Russell case.

1938In those cases, or at least some of them, this court announced the rule that one dollar was not a valuable consideration; hut they and all others adhering to that declaration were overruled by us in the case of Union Gas & Oil Company v. Wiedemann Oil Company, 211 Ky. 361 , 277 S. W. 323 .

1938In those cases, or at least some of them, this court announced the rule that one dollar was not a valuable consideration; hut they and all others adhering to that declaration were overruled by us in the case of Union Gas & Oil Company v. Wiedemann Oil Company, 211 Ky. 361 , 277 S. W. 323 .

1937One is a tax upon the net income of property and the other is a tax on the net income of one who owns or operates it.” I think the tax here is clearly upon income, and if I am right in that conclusion, then under the doctrine of this court as announced in Hager v. Walker, 128 Ky. 1 , 107 Ky. 254 , 32 Ky. Law Rep. 748 , 15 L.

1932In the late case of Alford v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 732 , 13 S. W. (2d) 1026, 1027 , this court had before it this very question, and in the course of its opinion announced this rule in this language: “The court permitted the commonwealth, however, to introduce evidence tending to show that appellant had sold liquor to the prosecuting witness on other days than January 13, 1927.

1932In the late case of Alford v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 732 , 13 S. W. (2d) 1026, 1027 , this court had before it this very question, and in the course of its opinion announced this rule in this language: “The court permitted the commonwealth, however, to introduce evidence tending to show that appellant had sold liquor to the prosecuting witness on other days than January 13, 1927.

1932The appointment of a receiver is made by a court of equity, in the performance of one of its prerogative functions, and as incidental to, and in aid of, its jurisdiction, in order to enable it to accomplish, as far as practicable, complete justice between the parties before it.” Again, in Elkhorn Hazard Coal Co. v. Fairchild, 191 Ky. 276, 282 , 230 S. W. 61, 64 , the court announced this rule, to like effect as follows: “The appointment of a receiver is a matter always within the sound discretion of the court, to be exer *698 eised, however, in accordance with established legal principles.

1932The appointment of a receiver is made by a court of equity, in the performance of one of its prerogative functions, and as incidental to, and in aid of, its jurisdiction, in order to enable it to accomplish, as far as practicable, complete justice between the parties before it.” Again, in Elkhorn Hazard Coal Co. v. Fairchild, 191 Ky. 276, 282 , 230 S. W. 61, 64 , the court announced this rule, to like effect as follows: “The appointment of a receiver is a matter always within the sound discretion of the court, to be exer *698 eised, however, in accordance with established legal principles.

1929In the case of Murphy v. Sawyer & Woodford, 152 Ky. 645 , 153 S. W. 991 , this court announced the rule that, when the owner gives only an exclusive agency to sell the land, he is not deprived of the right to find a purchaser and make a sale, but is only denied the right to make a sale through .-another agent.

1929In the case of Murphy v. Sawyer & Woodford, 152 Ky. 645 , 153 S. W. 991 , this court announced the rule that, when the owner gives only an exclusive agency to sell the land, he is not deprived of the right to find a purchaser and make a sale, but is only denied the right to make a sale through .-another agent.

1928In the recent case of Atkinson v. Kern, 210 Ky. 824 , 276 S. W. 977 , we had occasion to review all the cases on this question in connection with section 2344, Kentucky Statutes, and we there held that the correct doctrine in a case like this was announced in rule 4 set forth in Harvey v. Bell, 118 Ky. 512 , 81 S. W. 671 , which is to the effect that, where there is no intervening estate and no other period to which the words, “die without issue,” can be reasonably said to have had reference, they are held, in tbe absence of something in the will showing a contrary purpose, to create a defeasi

1928In the recent case of Atkinson v. Kern, 210 Ky. 824 , 276 S. W. 977 , we had occasion to review all the cases on this question in connection with section 2344, Kentucky Statutes, and we there held that the correct doctrine in a case like this was announced in rule 4 set forth in Harvey v. Bell, 118 Ky. 512 , 81 S. W. 671 , which is to the effect that, where there is no intervening estate and no other period to which the words, “die without issue,” can be reasonably said to have had reference, they are held, in tbe absence of something in the will showing a contrary purpose, to create a defeasi

1928In the recent case of Atkinson v. Kern, 210 Ky. 824 , 276 S. W. 977 , we had occasion to review all the cases on this question in connection with section 2344, Kentucky Statutes, and we there held that the correct doctrine in a case like this was announced in rule 4 set forth in Harvey v. Bell, 118 Ky. 512 , 81 S. W. 671 , which is to the effect that, where there is no intervening estate and no other period to which the words, “die without issue,” can be reasonably said to have had reference, they are held, in tbe absence of something in the will showing a contrary purpose, to create a defeasi

1928In the case of Ellis v. *185 Com., 146 Ky. 715 , 143 S. W. 425 , the court announced this rule governing the question: “It is very clear that, if this evidence of the witness was incompetent, no proper or available objection or exception was taken to it, as the motion at the conclusion of the evidence to exclude from the jury ‘the testimony of Mrs. Sállie Spencer’ was not sufficiently definite to call the attention of the court to the particular answers in her evidence that counsel desired to object to.

1928In the case of Ellis v. *185 Com., 146 Ky. 715 , 143 S. W. 425 , the court announced this rule governing the question: “It is very clear that, if this evidence of the witness was incompetent, no proper or available objection or exception was taken to it, as the motion at the conclusion of the evidence to exclude from the jury ‘the testimony of Mrs. Sállie Spencer’ was not sufficiently definite to call the attention of the court to the particular answers in her evidence that counsel desired to object to.

1928Counsel also rely on the case of McDowell v. Edwards, 156 Ky. 475 , 161 S. W. 534 , where the court announced the rule that the law looks with suspicion upon conveyances made by persons mentally or physically infirm to those having custody of them.

1928Counsel also rely on the case of McDowell v. Edwards, 156 Ky. 475 , 161 S. W. 534 , where the court announced the rule that the law looks with suspicion upon conveyances made by persons mentally or physically infirm to those having custody of them.

1927In the early case of Dale v. Pope, 4 Littell 166 , the court announced the rule that, where the note is for the absolute and unconditional payment of money, it cannot be defeated, either in law or equity, by alleging and .proving that it was not to be paid, except on a contingency.

1927In McCown’s Admr. v. Jennings, 2 Ky. Law Rep. 315 , it was, held that, in the absence of an allegation of fraud or mistake in the execution of the note, the payee could not defend upon the ground that the amount for -which the note was executed was intended by plaintiff’s intestate as an advancement to him.

1927It cannot ask that it shall be enriched at the cost of the defendant or that more than a fair and reasonable compensation shall be paid it for what it has lost, the 3.56 acres of cannel coal land.” In the case of Burke Hollow Coal Company v. Lawson, 151 Ky. 305 , the court adhered to the rule announced in the Sandy River Cannel Coal Company case, supra, with the following addition thereto: ‘ ‘ The royalty is the price paid for coal as it lies in the earth.

1917These same questions arose in the case of City of Covington v. Schlosser, et al., 141 Ky. 838 , and the court announced the doctrine as follows: “In disposing of this question it does not seem necessary that we should go into a discussion of the acts or conduct of the property owner, that would estop him from objecting to an assessment against his property for local improvements.

1916We know of no authority to the contrary, and will refer to the comparatively recent case of Taylor v. Russell, 117 Ky., 539 , wherein this court announced the rule as follows: ‘£ Such construction is not to be favored, and will not be adopted when any other consistent construction will allow both to stand.

1906In Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 3 Bush, 480 , Withers v. Commonwealth, 36 S. W. 14 , 18 Ky. Law Rep. 285 , Baker v. Commonwealth, 106 Ky. 212 , 47 S. W. 864 , 20 Ky. Law Rep. 879 , and Johnson v. Commonwealth, 9 Bush, 224 , the court announced the rule that the Code required all the grounds relied on for a new trial that are mentioned in section 271 of the Criminal Code of Practice to be pointed out in the motion for a; new trial, and therefore no ground not stated in the motion would be considered on appeal.

1906The only exception to this rule is found, in Johnson v. Commonwealth, 9 Bush, 224 ; Turnbull v. Common wealth, 79 Ky. 495 , 3 Ky. Law Rep. 794 , in which ii was held not necessary to specify in the motion and grounds for a new trial errors in the admission or rejection of evidence because error in this respect is not mentioned in the Code as one of the grounds for a new trial, although it is indispensable to a review of errors- in the admission or rejection of evidence that the bill of exceptions shall show the error, and that the party complaining saved proper objection and exception to it at

1906The only exception to this rule is found, in Johnson v. Commonwealth, 9 Bush, 224 ; Turnbull v. Common wealth, 79 Ky. 495 , 3 Ky. Law Rep. 794 , in which ii was held not necessary to specify in the motion and grounds for a new trial errors in the admission or rejection of evidence because error in this respect is not mentioned in the Code as one of the grounds for a new trial, although it is indispensable to a review of errors- in the admission or rejection of evidence that the bill of exceptions shall show the error, and that the party complaining saved proper objection and exception to it at

1906In Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 3 Bush, 480 , Withers v. Commonwealth, 36 S. W. 14 , 18 Ky. Law Rep. 285 , Baker v. Commonwealth, 106 Ky. 212 , 47 S. W. 864 , 20 Ky. Law Rep. 879 , and Johnson v. Commonwealth, 9 Bush, 224 , the court announced the rule that the Code required all the grounds relied on for a new trial that are mentioned in section 271 of the Criminal Code of Practice to be pointed out in the motion for a; new trial, and therefore no ground not stated in the motion would be considered on appeal.

1906The only exception to this rule is found, in Johnson v. Commonwealth, 9 Bush, 224 ; Turnbull v. Common wealth, 79 Ky. 495 , 3 Ky. Law Rep. 794 , in which ii was held not necessary to specify in the motion and grounds for a new trial errors in the admission or rejection of evidence because error in this respect is not mentioned in the Code as one of the grounds for a new trial, although it is indispensable to a review of errors- in the admission or rejection of evidence that the bill of exceptions shall show the error, and that the party complaining saved proper objection and exception to it at

1906In Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 3 Bush, 480 , Withers v. Commonwealth, 36 S. W. 14 , 18 Ky. Law Rep. 285 , Baker v. Commonwealth, 106 Ky. 212 , 47 S. W. 864 , 20 Ky. Law Rep. 879 , and Johnson v. Commonwealth, 9 Bush, 224 , the court announced the rule that the Code required all the grounds relied on for a new trial that are mentioned in section 271 of the Criminal Code of Practice to be pointed out in the motion for a; new trial, and therefore no ground not stated in the motion would be considered on appeal.

1906In Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 3 Bush, 480 , Withers v. Commonwealth, 36 S. W. 14 , 18 Ky. Law Rep. 285 , Baker v. Commonwealth, 106 Ky. 212 , 47 S. W. 864 , 20 Ky. Law Rep. 879 , and Johnson v. Commonwealth, 9 Bush, 224 , the court announced the rule that the Code required all the grounds relied on for a new trial that are mentioned in section 271 of the Criminal Code of Practice to be pointed out in the motion for a; new trial, and therefore no ground not stated in the motion would be considered on appeal.

1893Co., reported in 87 Ky., 300 , where the authorities were reviewed on the question there presented, recognizes fully this rule of construction, and that regard must be had to the purpose sought to be accomplished by both the parties.