Whitaker v. Gault

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Whitaker v. Gault

6 Ky. Op. 561, 1873 Ky. LEXIS 281

DecidedMarch 14, 1873

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ky. Op. 561 (Whitaker v. Gault) 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

Whitaker v. Gault, 6 Ky. Op. 561, 1873 Ky. LEXIS 281 (Ky. Ct. App. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

■ It is too late now to inquire whether the traverse of the finding of the jury in the forcible entry and detainer cáse of Grnlt v. Price should have been prosecuted to the .county court instead of the Court of Common Pleas. The judgment of the latter court was affirmed on appeal by this court, and that judgment is now conclusive as to the validity of the bond sued on. It was not necessary that all the obligors to the bond should have been sued. Appellee had the right to sue all or any of them.

The answer presented no legal ground of defense, and the judgment upon the facts as to damages sustained seems to be for the proper amount.

It is therefore affirmed. In response to petition for rehearing, we would say, that the record shows that the traverse bond was not taken by the Common Pleas Courts, but by Matlock, the justice, who was the proper person to take it. The condition of the bond is that Price and Whitaker would pay to Gault all damages he might sustain by reason and in consequence of the traverse if it should not be prosecuted with effect. It was not prosecuted with effect, hence Whitaker, the surety, is liable.

Petition overruled.

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

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

■ It is too late now to inquire whether the traverse of the finding of the jury in the forcible entry and detainer cáse of Grnlt v. Price should have been prosecuted to the .county court instead of the Court of Common Pleas. The judgment of the latter court was affirmed on appeal by this court, and that judgment is now conclusive as to the validity of the bond sued on. It was not necessary that all the obligors to the bond should have been sued. Appellee had the right to sue all or any of them.

The answer presented no legal ground of defense, and the judgment upon the facts as to damages sustained seems to be for the proper amount.

It is therefore affirmed. In response to petition for rehearing, we would say, that the record shows that the traverse bond was not taken by the Common Pleas Courts, but by Matlock, the justice, who was the proper person to take it. The condition of the bond is that Price and Whitaker would pay to Gault all damages he might sustain by reason and in consequence of the traverse if it should not be prosecuted with effect. It was not prosecuted with effect, hence Whitaker, the surety, is liable.

Petition overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ky. Op. 561, 1873 Ky. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitaker-v-gault-kyctapp-1873.