Conclusion of a case recorded in the Southwestern Reporter, Volume 27. It was clearly erroneous to render judgment against George BYBEE, and subject his interest in the house and lot to the payment of appellee's claim. His only liability thereon existed by virtue of the provisions of sections 2084, 2098, St. St. 1899 and the fact that he had received, as devisee, a portion of his father's estate. When this action was brought, in 1902, his father's estate was not liable. The claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and he had the same right to interpose the plea of limitation, and with the same effect that his father could, if he had been living. (another case cited here). Appellee, in her reply, alleged that, long prior to the accrual of her cause of action, George Bybee was a nonresident of the state of Kentucky, and continued such until the bringing of her suit. The proof shows that he became a nonresident of this state about the year 1877, which was prior to the execution of the bond, or before any of the Bybees were liable to appellee for anything, and that he had continued to be a nonresident of this state and a resident of the State of Missouri ever since that time. (another citation of a previous case). It therefore appears that the reply of appellee was insufficient to stop the running of the statutes in favor of George Bybee, as he was not a resident of the State of Kentucky when appellee's cause of action accrued. (another citation of a case). For the reasons indicted, the judgment of the lower court [i.e. Barren Co Circuit Court] is reversed, and cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. End of records on this case. Sandi Sandi's Puzzlers: http://www.gensoup.org/gorinpuzzles/index.php Sandi's site: http://ggpublishing.tripod.com/ Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=south-central-kentucky