Smart v. Clift
2 Ky. 327, 1 Sneed 327, 1804 Ky. LEXIS 22
Opinion
The court below not having pronounced a final decree in this suit, and it not appearing that the appeal was granted on the express consent of the parties, this court is prohibited by law from [328]*328taking cognizance of it. Therefore, it is considered by the court, that the appeal aforesaid be dismissed, and that the suit be remanded to the said general court, that a final decree may be made therein, and that the appellee recover of the appellant his costs by him in this behalf expended, which is ordered to be certified to the said court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smart v. Clift, 2 Ky. 327, 1 Sneed 327, 1804 Ky. LEXIS 22 (Ky. Ct. App. 1804).
2 Ky. 327 (Smart v. Clift) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hallyburton v. Slagle.
44 S.E. 655 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
Lenoir v. Mining Co.
14 S.W. 378 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1889)