Bracken County Commissioners of Sinking Fund v. Daum
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 75 — ORDINARY APPEAL FROM BRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT. .1. The instructions given by the court are erroneous. The evidence utterly fails to show that the county judge consented'to or authorized any erasure of any name upon the power of attorney. The court should have sustained the demurrer to the answers of appellees. (Jones v. Ins.
Read the full summary
Case 75 — ORDINARY APPEAL FROM BRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT. .1. The instructions given by the court are erroneous. The evidence utterly fails to show that the county judge consented'to or authorized any erasure of any name upon the power of attorney. The court should have sustained the demurrer to the answers of appellees. (Jones v. Ins. Co., 2 Met., 58; Smith v. Moberly, Í0 B. Mon., 264; 14 Bush, 610.) ■ 2. Each and every appellee who ratified the bond is bound thereon upon the principles laid down in Bell v. Hazelwood, 1 Duv., 104. •1. The petition is insufficient. There is no averment that any…
1Opinion of the Court
'CHIEF JUSTICE HARGIS
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action on the bond of á sheriff against his -sureties for the .purpose of holding them liable for his deTault.
They interposed .a special plea of non est factum, based •upon the following facts: Ten persons, including the appellees, signed a power of attorney, authorizing the clerk of the ■county court to sign 'their names 'to the sheriff’s levy bond.
Before the power of attorney was delivered to the clerk, The sheriff to whom it had been delivered erased from it one •or two of the names of the sureties, but it is not clear…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. McGonigleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Boyd County v. RossCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1893
- Leslie County v. MaggardCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926
- State v. AllenMississippi Supreme Court · 1891
- Rollins v. HumphreyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897