Shockley v. Niess's Heirs

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Shockley v. Niess's Heirs

26 Ky. 96, 3 J.J. Marsh. 96, 1829 Ky. LEXIS 182

DecidedDecember 28, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Ky. 96 (Shockley v. Niess's Heirs) 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

Shockley v. Niess's Heirs, 26 Ky. 96, 3 J.J. Marsh. 96, 1829 Ky. LEXIS 182 (Ky. Ct. App. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge IIobkrtsoh

delivered the opinion of the Court.

William S. Bla'ir was a necessary party in this case. The record does not show that he was ever made a defendant.

It would-,therefore, have been right to dismiss the bill without prejudice, if the complainant had equity.

But his equity, if he showed any, was very questionable, and was of such a character as not to be entitled to the favor of the chancellor.

Moreover, the plaintiff has not complained that the bill was dismissed absolutely, instead <£>f being dismissed Without prejudice.

Denny, for plaintiff; Mills and Brown, for defendant.

He has assigned no error which can embrace this point.

Wherefore) the decree is affirmed.

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