Yeager's Adm'r v. Holcombe

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Yeager's Adm'r v. Holcombe

7 Ky. Op. 522, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 186

DecidedFebruary 21, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Ky. Op. 522 (Yeager's Adm'r v. Holcombe) 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

Yeager's Adm'r v. Holcombe, 7 Ky. Op. 522, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 186 (Ky. Ct. App. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Yeager had no such interest in the proceeding pending in the Union County Court, to procure a change in a public road, as would pass upon his death to his representatives and heirs. The real party in interest was the public, and Yeager was only permitted to represent it and to test the propriety of the proposed charge, upon the condition that he would be responsible for costs in case of failure. The proceeding necessarily abated with his death, unless some other citizen would voluntarily come into court and ask to be allowed to take his place.

It was improper for the court to allow his administrator and infant heirs to be brought into court, and made responsible for the costs. The motion of the attorney to have them' brought before the court should have been overruled, and the motion of Holcombe to dismiss the proceeding after they had been summoned, should have prevailed.

The judgment of the circuit court conforms to his view of the law. It is therefore affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Yeager had no such interest in the proceeding pending in the Union County Court, to procure a change in a public road, as would pass upon his death to his representatives and heirs. The real party in interest was the public, and Yeager was only permitted to represent it and to test the propriety of the proposed charge, upon the condition that he would be responsible for costs in case of failure. The proceeding necessarily abated with his death, unless some other citizen would voluntarily come into court and ask to be allowed to take his place.

It was improper for the court to allow his administrator and infant heirs to be brought into court, and made responsible for the costs. The motion of the attorney to have them' brought before the court should have been overruled, and the motion of Holcombe to dismiss the proceeding after they had been summoned, should have prevailed.

The judgment of the circuit court conforms to his view of the law. It is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ky. Op. 522, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yeagers-admr-v-holcombe-kyctapp-1874.