Clark v. Arnold
9 Ky. 24, 2 A.K. Marsh. 24, 1819 Ky. LEXIS 134
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
This action having been brought against the collector of the county levy and his sureties, upon a bond given by them for the collection and payment of the county levy, should not, as it seems to have been, commenced in the names of persons not in office, but ought regularly to have been prosecuted by the acting justice of the county.
The judgment must be reversed with cost, the cause remanded to the court below, and the action dismissed with cost.
Absent, Judge Rowan.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Clark v. Arnold, 9 Ky. 24, 2 A.K. Marsh. 24, 1819 Ky. LEXIS 134 (Ky. Ct. App. 1819).
9 Ky. 24 (Clark v. Arnold) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Akil v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation
W.D. Washington, 2025
Barocio v. County of Fresno
E.D. California, 2024
Anova Applied Electronics Inc v. Precision Appliance Technology Inc
W.D. Washington, 2022
State of Washington v. Landmark Technology A LLC
W.D. Washington, 2022
Kozlowski v. Commissioner of Social Security
W.D. New York, 2022
(HC) Allen v. Samuel
E.D. California, 2022
(SS) Schuler v. Commissioner of Social Security
E.D. California, 2020
Newell v. Arizona Board of Regents
D. Arizona, 2020
United States v. Charles E. Johnson
Fourth Circuit, 1999
Malone v. Commissioner
45 B.T.A. 305 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1941)