Mendall v. Rickets

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Mendall v. Rickets

29 Ky. 592, 6 J.J. Marsh. 592, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 268

DecidedOctober 24, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ky. 592 (Mendall v. Rickets) 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

Mendall v. Rickets, 29 Ky. 592, 6 J.J. Marsh. 592, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 268 (Ky. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the court.

Two questions are presented in this case. 1st. Did the county court err in binding the plaintiff to the defendant as an apprentice? 2nd. Is the defendant a proper party to the writ of error?

1st. The record states that the court bound the plaintiff because she was “apoor child,” and no notice seems to have been given to the parent or next friend, or to any other person. A notice was indispensable; see II. Digest 104-0. Unless the plaintiff was resident in the county of Mason, the court of that county had no jurisdiction; and if she resided there she must, according to any reasonable presumption, have resided with some person and have had either parent or next friend in the county, who might have been notified; and therefore notice cannot be dispensed with. Natural justice as well as law required a notice.

2nd. The defendant must be deemed a party to the proceeding in the county court, and would be directly affected by the judgment of this court. No other person than himself can be affected; wherefore it was proper to make him, and him alone, defendant in the writ of error.

The order of the county court is reversed, and the case remanded, in order that the judgment of this court maybe entered on the record of the county court. •

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

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the court.

Two questions are presented in this case. 1st. Did the county court err in binding the plaintiff to the defendant as an apprentice? 2nd. Is the defendant a proper party to the writ of error?

1st. The record states that the court bound the plaintiff because she was “apoor child,” and no notice seems to have been given to the parent or next friend, or to any other person. A notice was indispensable; see II. Digest 104-0. Unless the plaintiff was resident in the county of Mason, the court of that county had no jurisdiction; and if she resided there she must, according to any reasonable presumption, have resided with some person and have had either parent or next friend in the county, who might have been notified; and therefore notice cannot be dispensed with. Natural justice as well as law required a notice.

2nd. The defendant must be deemed a party to the proceeding in the county court, and would be directly affected by the judgment of this court. No other person than himself can be affected; wherefore it was proper to make him, and him alone, defendant in the writ of error.

The order of the county court is reversed, and the case remanded, in order that the judgment of this court maybe entered on the record of the county court. •

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ky. 592, 6 J.J. Marsh. 592, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendall-v-rickets-kyctapp-1831.