Rucker v. Bosworth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Rucker v. Bosworth

30 Ky. 645

DecidedNovember 2, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Ky. 645 (Rucker v. Bosworth) 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

Rucker v. Bosworth, 30 Ky. 645 (Ky. Ct. App. 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Nicholas

delivered tho opinion of the court.

Rucicer, as an informer, obtained judgments in the name of the Commonwealth, before a justice of the peace, for a number of fines, [646]*646which were collected by a constable and paid over-to Rucker. Subsequent to the payment of the fines to Rucker, a remission thereof was obtained from the governor. Bosworth then instituted this suit for the recovery of the amount of the fines so paid Rucker, and having obtained a verdict and judgment therefor, Rucker prosecutes this writ of error.

After n fino has been paid íbrmcT^hís111’ right is indefeasible, and a subsequent tbc'fine^'by the Governor, will not give finei'a r'ivlit of action to recoverback irom tne informer the amount of the fine so paid to him. Payne, for plaintiff.

We think Bosworth had no right to recover. The fines having been collected and paid over to the inf°rltlC1’'before the remission, his right thereto be-came absolute and indefeasible. Thefe was nothing left upon which the remission could take effect. A remission is not in the nature of nor does it operate like the reversal of a judgment. It is more like, and operates as a release. After the payment of a> debt or demand, a release of it operates nothing. So a^ter the payment of the fines to the prosecutor to whom they belonged, the governor’s power of remission was either gone or of none effect.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded, with directions for new trial and further proceedings consistent herewith,

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

Judge Nicholas

delivered tho opinion of the court.

Rucicer, as an informer, obtained judgments in the name of the Commonwealth, before a justice of the peace, for a number of fines, [646]*646which were collected by a constable and paid over-to Rucker. Subsequent to the payment of the fines to Rucker, a remission thereof was obtained from the governor. Bosworth then instituted this suit for the recovery of the amount of the fines so paid Rucker, and having obtained a verdict and judgment therefor, Rucker prosecutes this writ of error.

After n fino has been paid íbrmcT^hís111’ right is indefeasible, and a subsequent tbc'fine^'by the Governor, will not give finei'a r'ivlit of action to recoverback irom tne informer the amount of the fine so paid to him. Payne, for plaintiff.

We think Bosworth had no right to recover. The fines having been collected and paid over to the inf°rltlC1’'before the remission, his right thereto be-came absolute and indefeasible. Thefe was nothing left upon which the remission could take effect. A remission is not in the nature of nor does it operate like the reversal of a judgment. It is more like, and operates as a release. After the payment of a> debt or demand, a release of it operates nothing. So a^ter the payment of the fines to the prosecutor to whom they belonged, the governor’s power of remission was either gone or of none effect.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded, with directions for new trial and further proceedings consistent herewith,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Ky. 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rucker-v-bosworth-kyctapp-1832.