Noe v. Conyers

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Noe v. Conyers

29 Ky. 514, 6 J.J. Marsh. 514, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 232

DecidedOctober 12, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ky. 514 (Noe v. Conyers) 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

Noe v. Conyers, 29 Ky. 514, 6 J.J. Marsh. 514, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 232 (Ky. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Underwood,

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the 9!h of November 1824, J. and P. Corij-ers obtained a judgment for $38, 79 cents, with interest thereon from the 5th June, 1823, till paid, and costs, before a justice of the peace, against Noe and Lawless. On the 30Lh December, ¡829, an execution issued on the judgment in favor of J. and P. Conyers, styling them administrators of D. Conyers deceased, for the $38, 79 cents, but with interest thereon from the 5th May, (instead of June) 1823, and for costs variant in amount from (hose allowed by the judgment. Noe and Lawless moved the justice to quash the execution, he refused and they appealed to the circuit court according (o the provisions of the statute; II. Dig. 710. The circuit court likewise overruled the motion, and refused to quash the execution.

The circuit court erred. The execution should have been quashed for the following reasons;

1st. Because of the variance between it and the judgment, both as it respects the time from which interest was to be calculated, and the amount of costs.

De.ptzo, for plaintiffs.

2d, Because more than a year and day had elapsed after judgment without suing execution.

There was no proof that the execution which plaintiffs in error moved to quash, was a renewal of a former execution including the accruing costs.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for proceedings in conformity herwith.

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

Judge Underwood,

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the 9!h of November 1824, J. and P. Corij-ers obtained a judgment for $38, 79 cents, with interest thereon from the 5th June, 1823, till paid, and costs, before a justice of the peace, against Noe and Lawless. On the 30Lh December, ¡829, an execution issued on the judgment in favor of J. and P. Conyers, styling them administrators of D. Conyers deceased, for the $38, 79 cents, but with interest thereon from the 5th May, (instead of June) 1823, and for costs variant in amount from (hose allowed by the judgment. Noe and Lawless moved the justice to quash the execution, he refused and they appealed to the circuit court according (o the provisions of the statute; II. Dig. 710. The circuit court likewise overruled the motion, and refused to quash the execution.

The circuit court erred. The execution should have been quashed for the following reasons;

1st. Because of the variance between it and the judgment, both as it respects the time from which interest was to be calculated, and the amount of costs.

De.ptzo, for plaintiffs.

2d, Because more than a year and day had elapsed after judgment without suing execution.

There was no proof that the execution which plaintiffs in error moved to quash, was a renewal of a former execution including the accruing costs.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for proceedings in conformity herwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ky. 514, 6 J.J. Marsh. 514, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noe-v-conyers-kyctapp-1831.