Bank of Kentucky v. Lacey

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Bank of Kentucky v. Lacey

11 Ky. 295, 1 Litt. 295, 1822 Ky. LEXIS 111

DecidedJune 13, 1822

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Ky. 295 (Bank of Kentucky v. Lacey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of Kentucky v. Lacey, 11 Ky. 295, 1 Litt. 295, 1822 Ky. LEXIS 111 (Ky. Ct. App. 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court.

THIS is a motion to quash a delivery bond, and execution thereon; which was sustained by the court below, for errors apparent on its face. The motion was made by the security only, without uniting the principal in the bond.

It has already been decided in this court, that a writ of error coram vobis must combine all the parties to the bond, and that all the obligors must join. The same principles ought to apply to and govern motions of this character, which are concurrent remedies, in some measure at least, with the writ of error coram vobis, and supply its place. It was, then, necessary that the principal should join, or it will compel the opposite party to litigate the same matter, as many times as there are obligors. The motion, for this cause, ought not to have been sustained and decided on the merits.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion of the Court.

THIS is a motion to quash a delivery bond, and execution thereon; which was sustained by the court below, for errors apparent on its face. The motion was made by the security only, without uniting the principal in the bond.

It has already been decided in this court, that a writ of error coram vobis must combine all the parties to the bond, and that all the obligors must join. The same principles ought to apply to and govern motions of this character, which are concurrent remedies, in some measure at least, with the writ of error coram vobis, and supply its place. It was, then, necessary that the principal should join, or it will compel the opposite party to litigate the same matter, as many times as there are obligors. The motion, for this cause, ought not to have been sustained and decided on the merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Ky. 295, 1 Litt. 295, 1822 Ky. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-kentucky-v-lacey-kyctapp-1822.