Burnam v. Romans
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 46 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— Civil Code, secs. 261, 345. Myers’ Sup.,p. 40, sec. 11, Act of 1861. • MSS. Opin., Dec., 1856; Smith vs. Haley. MSS. Opin., June, 1857; Waller vs. Eddy. MSS. Opin., Feby., 1858; Haynes, ¿¡-c., vs. Hawkins. CITED— Civil Code, secs. 259, 261, 224. 18 B. Mon., 632; Lane vs. Robinson.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Peters
This was a proceeding by attachment, and the first alleged error complained of is, that the court below did not discharge the attachment, on motion of appellant, because the order therefor did not specify the amount for which it was allowed. The clerk who granted the attachment states that the same is granted “ according to the prayer of the petition, upon the execution of a bond as required by law.” The prayer of the petition is, that appellee may have judgment for his said debt, the amount of which he had specified in his petition, *192interest, and costs, and for an attachment against the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Williams v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
3Cited by2 opinions
- Halcomb v. PhippsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
- Kleine, Timberman & Co. v. NieCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889