Wright v. Baker
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 58 — MANDAMUS— The county judge acts ministerially upon the application for the writ of ad quod damnum, and, therefore, mandamus lies to compel him to issue the writ. (Gen. Stats, chap. 18i,- Common School Law, art. 8, sec. 6; McDonald, Justice, &e., v. Jenkins, &c., 14 Ky. Law Rep., 157; s. c., 93 Ky., 249.) 1. As only one of the trustees is suing, there is a defect of parties.
Read the full summary
Case 58 — MANDAMUS— The county judge acts ministerially upon the application for the writ of ad quod damnum, and, therefore, mandamus lies to compel him to issue the writ. (Gen. Stats, chap. 18i,- Common School Law, art. 8, sec. 6; McDonald, Justice, &e., v. Jenkins, &c., 14 Ky. Law Rep., 157; s. c., 93 Ky., 249.) 1. As only one of the trustees is suing, there is a defect of parties. (Civil Code, sec. 24.) .2. The county judite acted judicially in refusing the writ, and, therefore, mandamus does not lie. (Commonwealth for, &c., v. Boone County Court, 82 Ky., 632.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG
delivered the opinion of the court.
Tlie trustees of common school district No. 7, of Letcher county, having selected a parcel of land as the most suitable for a school-house site, and' being unable to agree with the owner as to its price, he, in fact, declining to sell at any price, made application to County Judge Baker for a writ of ad quod damnum. This was made by petition, and Moses Bently, the owner of the land, was made a defendnnt. He appeared and filed an answer, alleging that *344the place sought to be condemned was not as near as practicable to the center of the district…
2Cited by1 opinion
- D. C. Heath & Co. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908