Mahony v. Holland

5 Ky. 243
Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided July 1, 1810·Published

Opinion

OPINION of the Court, by

Ch. J. Boyle

The practice of giving a judgment for the costs of a continuance granted pending the suit, is incorrect : that practice (though prevalent in this country) is unwarranted by any adjudication, and we apprehend if established would lead to mischievous consequences. It would involve the absurdity of having as many final judgments m every canse as there were continuances granted at the costs of either party, to each of which judgments a writ of error might be prosecuted to this court. It would greatly enhance the expences of the litigants, by allowing the clerks to charge for all the forms of entering a judgment, taxing costs, issuing execution, &c. instead of a fee for entering the order for costs, which he would alone be entitled to if the regular practice were pursued. It would subject the real as well as the personal estate or the party, to the payment of the costs by execution in the first instance, and when the continuance waa produced by the unavoidable absence of the party from sickness or otherwise, his property might be sacrificed without his knowledge ; whereas an order

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

Mahony v. Holland, 5 Ky. 243 (Ky. Ct. App. 1810).

5 Ky. 243 (Mahony v. Holland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.