Thompson v. Baker

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Thompson v. Baker

12 Ky. Op. 115, 4 Ky. L. Rptr. 983, 1883 Ky. LEXIS 160

DecidedMay 3, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Ky. Op. 115 (Thompson v. Baker) 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

Thompson v. Baker, 12 Ky. Op. 115, 4 Ky. L. Rptr. 983, 1883 Ky. LEXIS 160 (Ky. Ct. App. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The trial of this case took place at the November term, 1878, and the judgment was then rendered, and the motion for a new trial was made and time given until the next term of the court, which was in April, to file the bill of evidence.

The order then shows that a bill of evidence was tendered, but another order was made extending the time until the second day of a called or adjourned term to be held in August. This was unauthorized and the appellee could not be kept in court watching the movements of his adversary to ascertain when he would file his bill of evi[116]*116dence. It was not even filed at the August term but passed over until November and then filed. See Richards v. Bennett, 4 Ky. L, 890; Smith, v. Blakeman, 8 Bush (Ky.) 476. There being no bill of evidence and the question being one of fact, the judgment is

Clarke & Simon, for appellants. L. T. Applegate, for appellee.

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

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The trial of this case took place at the November term, 1878, and the judgment was then rendered, and the motion for a new trial was made and time given until the next term of the court, which was in April, to file the bill of evidence.

The order then shows that a bill of evidence was tendered, but another order was made extending the time until the second day of a called or adjourned term to be held in August. This was unauthorized and the appellee could not be kept in court watching the movements of his adversary to ascertain when he would file his bill of evi[116]*116dence. It was not even filed at the August term but passed over until November and then filed. See Richards v. Bennett, 4 Ky. L, 890; Smith, v. Blakeman, 8 Bush (Ky.) 476. There being no bill of evidence and the question being one of fact, the judgment is

Clarke & Simon, for appellants. L. T. Applegate, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Ky. Op. 115, 4 Ky. L. Rptr. 983, 1883 Ky. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-baker-kyctapp-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack