McAllister v. Lambrose

3 Citing cases

  1. Lemaster v. Caudill

    328 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 14 times
    In LeMaster v. Caudill 328 S.W.2d 276 ([Ky.]1959) the Supreme Court of Kentucky allowed a claim of fraud to be presented to a jury despite the fact that the parties did not read a deed conveying their interest in property to their brother.

    Defendants conclude this argument with the deduction that the testimony is so manifestly incredible that it should be denied evidentiary weight, and rely upon cases which state that proof of fraud to authorize cancellation must be clear and convincing. McAllister v. Lambrose, 221 Ky. 44, 297 S.W. 936; Clarke v. Salyersville National Bank, 260 Ky. 676, 86 S.W.2d 674. It is true that we have many times held that such proof must be clear and convincing but the cases have been somewhat vague in designating the person who must be convinced.

  2. Filbeck v. Coomer

    298 Ky. 167 (Ky. Ct. App. 1944)   Cited 24 times

    Proof of fraud must be clear and convincing to support an action to set aside a written instrument. McAllister v. Lambrose, 221 Ky. 44, 297 S.W. 936; T. M. Crutcher Laboratories v. Crutcher, 288 Ky. 709, 157 S.W.2d 314. None of the witnesses Mrs. Holley introduced to clarify her proof testified to a single fact in substantiation of her contention; whilst Filbeck and a totally disinterested witness emphatically denied that any representation, true or false, was made in respect to any negotiation with Mr. Oliver. Viewing the evidence in its entirety, the uncorroborated testimony of Mrs. Holley lacks the convincing character necessary to support the judgment setting aside the deed. Finally, it is argued that appellees at least should recover judgment for the value of the excess acreage the tract of land was found to contain after the deed to Filbeck was executed.

  3. Jones v. Brammer

    17 S.W.2d 736 (Ky. Ct. App. 1929)   Cited 5 times

    To authorize the rescission of a contract on the ground of fraud, however, the fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Wood's Guardian v. Inter-Southern Life Ins. Co., 224 Ky. 579, 6 S.W.2d 712; McAllister v. Lambrose, 221 Ky. 44, 297 S.W. 936; Lossie v. Central Trust Co., 219 Ky. 1, 292 S.W. 338; Larmon v. Miller, 195 Ky. 654, 243 S.W. 939; Cole v. Young, 167 Ky. 600, 181 S.W. 177. We are of opinion that appellants have failed to meet this requirement.