Bank of Kentucky v. Lacy

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Bank of Kentucky v. Lacy

10 Ky. 492, 3 A.K. Marsh. 492, 1821 Ky. LEXIS 192

DecidedJune 7, 1821

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Ky. 492 (Bank of Kentucky v. Lacy) 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. Lacy, 10 Ky. 492, 3 A.K. Marsh. 492, 1821 Ky. LEXIS 192 (Ky. Ct. App. 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Mills

delivered the opinion.

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 tbe security only, without reciting the principal in the boud. It has already been decided in this court, that a writ of error coram vobis, must combine all the parties to a bood, and that all the obligors must join. Tbe same principle 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.

The judgment is therefore reversed with costs, and the cause remanded, with directions there to quash the notice with costs.

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

Judge Mills

delivered the opinion.

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 tbe security only, without reciting the principal in the boud. It has already been decided in this court, that a writ of error coram vobis, must combine all the parties to a bood, and that all the obligors must join. Tbe same principle 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.

The judgment is therefore reversed with costs, and the cause remanded, with directions there to quash the notice with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Ky. 492, 3 A.K. Marsh. 492, 1821 Ky. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-kentucky-v-lacy-kyctapp-1821.