Mahlman v. Williams
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 45 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM KEFTOF CIRCUIT COURT. The supersedeas did not prevent appellee from having an order requiring the garnishee to pay the fund in controversy into court, and any loss he has suffered is due to his failure to take such an order and not to the supersedeas. Therefore, he is not entitled to recover on the supersedeas bond.
Read the full summary
Case 45 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM KEFTOF CIRCUIT COURT. The supersedeas did not prevent appellee from having an order requiring the garnishee to pay the fund in controversy into court, and any loss he has suffered is due to his failure to take such an order and not to the supersedeas. Therefore, he is not entitled to recover on the supersedeas bond. (Graham v. Swigert, 12 B. M., 528; Roberts v. Jenkins, 80 Ky., 669.) The fund in controversy was not a fund in court, and as the supersedeas bond prevented .appellee from taking any steps to secure its payment, the surety in the bond is…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion op the court.
John Brungs & Bros, and R. F. Williams were each asserting, in an action brought by John Brungs & Bros., an indebtedness to them by one Benjamin Thomas, and attempting to secure their respective claims out of an indebtedness by the Norton Lumber & Manufacturing ■Co. to Thomas. All of these parties were defendants to the action. On the trial of the case, it appearing that the Lumber Company was indebted to Thomas, the court below held that Williams’ claim should be first paid by that company, and adjudged that the company pay to Williams the sum of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Welch v. WelchCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
- Perry v. Tacoma Mill Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1907