Holeman v. Carneal
This text of 9 Ky. 602 (Holeman v. Carneal) 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.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
Notwithstanding the court, before whom the traverse in this case was tried, made an order discharging the surety in the bond given by Carneal before the justice, for the due prosecution of the traverse, the surety, nevertheless, remained responsible; and, as was held at the present term in the case of Jack against Carneal, the security was incompetent to prove any fact conducing to shew Carneal's right to recover. Because therefore, Rout, who is security in the bond, was admitted as a witness on the part of Carneal, the judgment must be reversed with cost, the cause remanded, and further proceedings had, not inconsistent with his opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 Ky. 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holeman-v-carneal-kyctapp-1820.