Taylor v. Gilkerson

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Taylor v. Gilkerson

7 Ky. 410, 4 Bibb 410, 1816 Ky. LEXIS 88

DecidedOctober 12, 1816

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Ky. 410 (Taylor v. Gilkerson) 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

Taylor v. Gilkerson, 7 Ky. 410, 4 Bibb 410, 1816 Ky. LEXIS 88 (Ky. Ct. App. 1816).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION of the Court, by

Ch. J. Borra.

This is a'writ of error to a judgment taken by default in an action of ejectment.

Tiie demise laid in the declaration is alleged to have been made by “ John Gilkerson, attorney in fact for the heirs of James Gilkerson, deceasedThis mode of laying the demise, without naming the lessors of the plaintiff, is certainly not warranted by any precedent, and cannot, we apprehend, be justified upon principle. They ought to be named, not only because they are the real plaintiffs and liable to costs, but that the tenant in possession might know with certainty who sets up title, and be thereby enabled to controvert their right. The declaration is therefore insufficient, and the judgment consequently erroneous.

Judgment reversed,

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

OPINION of the Court, by

Ch. J. Borra.

This is a'writ of error to a judgment taken by default in an action of ejectment.

Tiie demise laid in the declaration is alleged to have been made by “ John Gilkerson, attorney in fact for the heirs of James Gilkerson, deceasedThis mode of laying the demise, without naming the lessors of the plaintiff, is certainly not warranted by any precedent, and cannot, we apprehend, be justified upon principle. They ought to be named, not only because they are the real plaintiffs and liable to costs, but that the tenant in possession might know with certainty who sets up title, and be thereby enabled to controvert their right. The declaration is therefore insufficient, and the judgment consequently erroneous.

Judgment reversed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ky. 410, 4 Bibb 410, 1816 Ky. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-gilkerson-kyctapp-1816.