just rule in Kentucky

2010Co. v. Elliott, 223 Ky. 205 , 3 S.W.2d 219, 221 (1928).

1969In Messer, we pointed out: “But bearing in mind that compensation laws are fundamentally for the benefit of the injured workmen, a just claim must not fall victim to rules of order unless it is clearly necessary in order to' prevent chaos.” Id. 382 S.W.2d 212 .

1956(It also is suggested that when a court lays down *463 a rule for the future hut does not apply it to the controversy under consideration, the court is either legislating or the new rule is mere dicta.) Assuming the doctrine announced (but not followed) in the Hanks case, 307 Ky. 243 , 210 S.W.2d 784 , 17 A.L.R.2d 1 , to be sound with respect to the particular facts there involved, there is a clear distinction apparent in the present case.

1956(It also is suggested that when a court lays down *463 a rule for the future hut does not apply it to the controversy under consideration, the court is either legislating or the new rule is mere dicta.) Assuming the doctrine announced (but not followed) in the Hanks case, 307 Ky. 243 , 210 S.W.2d 784 , 17 A.L.R.2d 1 , to be sound with respect to the particular facts there involved, there is a clear distinction apparent in the present case.

1935The case of Black et al. v. Elkhorn Coal Corporation, 233 Ky. 588 , 26 S. W. (2d) 481 , is typical of the cases wherein the question or subject-matter involves a common and general interest of many persons and where the parties are numerous and one or more may sue for the benefit of all.

1935The case of Black et al. v. Elkhorn Coal Corporation, 233 Ky. 588 , 26 S. W. (2d) 481 , is typical of the cases wherein the question or subject-matter involves a common and general interest of many persons and where the parties are numerous and one or more may sue for the benefit of all.

1929Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Sexton, 166 Ky. 219 , 179 S. W. 36 ; North Jellico Coal Co. v. Helton, 174 Ky. 335 , 192 S. W. 32 ; Lisle’s Adm’rs. v. Oliver, 181 Ky. 829 , 205 S. W. 954 ; Lockhart v. Kentland Coal & Coke Co., 182 Ky. 673 , 207 S. W. 18 ; and many other authorities.

1929Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Sexton, 166 Ky. 219 , 179 S. W. 36 ; North Jellico Coal Co. v. Helton, 174 Ky. 335 , 192 S. W. 32 ; Lisle’s Adm’rs. v. Oliver, 181 Ky. 829 , 205 S. W. 954 ; Lockhart v. Kentland Coal & Coke Co., 182 Ky. 673 , 207 S. W. 18 ; and many other authorities.

1929Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Sexton, 166 Ky. 219 , 179 S. W. 36 ; North Jellico Coal Co. v. Helton, 174 Ky. 335 , 192 S. W. 32 ; Lisle’s Adm’rs. v. Oliver, 181 Ky. 829 , 205 S. W. 954 ; Lockhart v. Kentland Coal & Coke Co., 182 Ky. 673 , 207 S. W. 18 ; and many other authorities.

1929Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Sexton, 166 Ky. 219 , 179 S. W. 36 ; North Jellico Coal Co. v. Helton, 174 Ky. 335 , 192 S. W. 32 ; Lisle’s Adm’rs. v. Oliver, 181 Ky. 829 , 205 S. W. 954 ; Lockhart v. Kentland Coal & Coke Co., 182 Ky. 673 , 207 S. W. 18 ; and many other authorities.

1929Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Sexton, 166 Ky. 219 , 179 S. W. 36 ; North Jellico Coal Co. v. Helton, 174 Ky. 335 , 192 S. W. 32 ; Lisle’s Adm’rs. v. Oliver, 181 Ky. 829 , 205 S. W. 954 ; Lockhart v. Kentland Coal & Coke Co., 182 Ky. 673 , 207 S. W. 18 ; and many other authorities.

1929Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Sexton, 166 Ky. 219 , 179 S. W. 36 ; North Jellico Coal Co. v. Helton, 174 Ky. 335 , 192 S. W. 32 ; Lisle’s Adm’rs. v. Oliver, 181 Ky. 829 , 205 S. W. 954 ; Lockhart v. Kentland Coal & Coke Co., 182 Ky. 673 , 207 S. W. 18 ; and many other authorities.

1929Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Sexton, 166 Ky. 219 , 179 S. W. 36 ; North Jellico Coal Co. v. Helton, 174 Ky. 335 , 192 S. W. 32 ; Lisle’s Adm’rs. v. Oliver, 181 Ky. 829 , 205 S. W. 954 ; Lockhart v. Kentland Coal & Coke Co., 182 Ky. 673 , 207 S. W. 18 ; and many other authorities.

1929Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Sexton, 166 Ky. 219 , 179 S. W. 36 ; North Jellico Coal Co. v. Helton, 174 Ky. 335 , 192 S. W. 32 ; Lisle’s Adm’rs. v. Oliver, 181 Ky. 829 , 205 S. W. 954 ; Lockhart v. Kentland Coal & Coke Co., 182 Ky. 673 , 207 S. W. 18 ; and many other authorities.

1928It was long ago held in the case of Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Spiers & Thomas, 87 Ky. 285 , 8 S. W. 453 , 10 Ky. Law Rep. 254 , that notice to an agent of an insurance company is notice to the company.

1928It was long ago held in the case of Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Spiers & Thomas, 87 Ky. 285 , 8 S. W. 453 , 10 Ky. Law Rep. 254 , that notice to an agent of an insurance company is notice to the company.

1916Louisville Coffin Co. v. Warren, 78 Ky., 400 ; Seigfried v. Hays, 81 Ky., 377 ; Palestine Building Association v. Minor, 27 Ky. L.

1916Louisville Coffin Co. v. Warren, 78 Ky., 400 ; Seigfried v. Hays, 81 Ky., 377 ; Palestine Building Association v. Minor, 27 Ky. L.

1887The above views are in harmony with those expressed in the cases of Overly’s Executor v. Overly’s Devisees, 1 Met., 117 ; Lucking’s Administrator v. Gregg, 12 Bush, 298; Berry, &c., v. Graddy, 1 Met., 553, and Hoyt v. Sprague, 8 Reporter, p. 616; and seems to listo accord with the equitable rule laid down in Perry on Trusts, section 485: “ That the cestui que trust ought to save the trustee harmless when the trustee has honestly, fairly, and without the possibility of gain to himself, paid out money for the cestui que trusty The account presented by the appellant, which shows a balance owing t

1887The above views are in harmony with those expressed in the cases of Overly’s Executor v. Overly’s Devisees, 1 Met., 117 ; Lucking’s Administrator v. Gregg, 12 Bush, 298; Berry, &c., v. Graddy, 1 Met., 553, and Hoyt v. Sprague, 8 Reporter, p. 616; and seems to listo accord with the equitable rule laid down in Perry on Trusts, section 485: “ That the cestui que trust ought to save the trustee harmless when the trustee has honestly, fairly, and without the possibility of gain to himself, paid out money for the cestui que trusty The account presented by the appellant, which shows a balance owing t

1887The above views are in harmony with those expressed in the cases of Overly’s Executor v. Overly’s Devisees, 1 Met., 117 ; Lucking’s Administrator v. Gregg, 12 Bush, 298; Berry, &c., v. Graddy, 1 Met., 553, and Hoyt v. Sprague, 8 Reporter, p. 616; and seems to listo accord with the equitable rule laid down in Perry on Trusts, section 485: “ That the cestui que trust ought to save the trustee harmless when the trustee has honestly, fairly, and without the possibility of gain to himself, paid out money for the cestui que trusty The account presented by the appellant, which shows a balance owing t

1840This just principle of equity, is recognized in the analagous case of Bainbridge vs Caldwell et al. ( 4 Dana, 211 .) Therefore, without the statute of 1828, the Chancellor had jurisdiction in this case, to enjoin the removal of the pork, and enforce the lien or the direct payment of the amount due.

1840Mar. 120,) and had there been no such judicial recognition, we should be clearly of the opinion that such an acknowledgment, by an infant feme covert, may be avoided by hen in consequence of her infancy, for it being well settled, as decided in Milner vs Turner’s heirs, ( 4 Mon. 245 ,) that the acknowledgment of a deed before a clerk is a ministerial act in pais, and therefore may be avoided by a male cognisor who labored under no other disability than that of infancy, there could be no good reason for denying the same just privilege to a female, to whose infancy the disability of coverture wa