Jones v. Williams

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Jones v. Williams

20 Ky. 42, 4 T.B. Mon. 42, 1826 Ky. LEXIS 111

DecidedJanuary 16, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Ky. 42 (Jones v. Williams) 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

Jones v. Williams, 20 Ky. 42, 4 T.B. Mon. 42, 1826 Ky. LEXIS 111 (Ky. Ct. App. 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Mills.

[Absent Chief Justice Bibb.]

These are motions in which executions and delivery bonds were quashed in the court below, at the instance, of the plaintiffs in that court. The record shews no reasons, either for, or against the judgments. It is silent about, notice, of course we must suppose the motions to be based on matters of record, no part of which is here, except the executions and delivery bonds. In them we discover no defects. But as defects may exist in other parts of the record, and in the original judgments, or in the return of former executions, the presumption must be indulged, that the court below did right.

We decline directing a certiorari, to bring up the residue of the records. For it is the invariable course of this court not to award a certiorari ex officio to bring up new matter for the purpose of reversing the judgments or decrees of inferior tribunals.

Each judgment must, therefore, be affirmed with costs.

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Mills.

[Absent Chief Justice Bibb.]

These are motions in which executions and delivery bonds were quashed in the court below, at the instance, of the plaintiffs in that court. The record shews no reasons, either for, or against the judgments. It is silent about, notice, of course we must suppose the motions to be based on matters of record, no part of which is here, except the executions and delivery bonds. In them we discover no defects. But as defects may exist in other parts of the record, and in the original judgments, or in the return of former executions, the presumption must be indulged, that the court below did right.

We decline directing a certiorari, to bring up the residue of the records. For it is the invariable course of this court not to award a certiorari ex officio to bring up new matter for the purpose of reversing the judgments or decrees of inferior tribunals.

Each judgment must, therefore, be affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ky. 42, 4 T.B. Mon. 42, 1826 Ky. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-williams-kyctapp-1826.