Thomas v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Thomas v. Smith

7 Ky. Op. 536, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 195

DecidedFebruary 27, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Ky. Op. 536 (Thomas v. Smith) 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

Thomas v. Smith, 7 Ky. Op. 536, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 195 (Ky. Ct. App. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

Conceding that the judgment enforcing the rule against Thomas was final and beyond the control of the court at a subsequent term, as between the plaintiff and Thomas and Scott, yet we are of the opinion that, as the fund in litigation had not been, paid over when the appellant, Wallace, offered to file his petition, and asked thereby to be made a party, claiming the debt on Thomas by assignment prior in date to the levy of the order of attachment, he was entitled to be so admitted as a party by the express provisions of Sec. 257, Civi'l Code of Practice, there being* nothing in the judgment against Thomas to conclude him from, litigating the right to collect the debt as between him and Smith; and the court, therefore, erred in rejecting the petition of Wallace to be made a party.

Wherefore the judgment as to Wallace is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsitent with this opinion.

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

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

Conceding that the judgment enforcing the rule against Thomas was final and beyond the control of the court at a subsequent term, as between the plaintiff and Thomas and Scott, yet we are of the opinion that, as the fund in litigation had not been, paid over when the appellant, Wallace, offered to file his petition, and asked thereby to be made a party, claiming the debt on Thomas by assignment prior in date to the levy of the order of attachment, he was entitled to be so admitted as a party by the express provisions of Sec. 257, Civi'l Code of Practice, there being* nothing in the judgment against Thomas to conclude him from, litigating the right to collect the debt as between him and Smith; and the court, therefore, erred in rejecting the petition of Wallace to be made a party.

Wherefore the judgment as to Wallace is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsitent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ky. Op. 536, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-smith-kyctapp-1874.