Pusey v. Meade County Court
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 60 — MANDAMUS APPEAL PROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— 18 B. Mon., 852; Anderson Co. Ct. vs. Stone 41 Son. 4 Bacon’s Abridg., 497. 3 Blackstone, 110 — 111. 3 Bouvier’s Inst., 93-113. 3 Burrows, 1266. 1 Cranch, 137 ; Marbury vs. Madison. 8 B. Mon., 652; 'Auditor vs. Hardin.
Read the full summary
CASE 60 — MANDAMUS APPEAL PROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— 18 B. Mon., 852; Anderson Co. Ct. vs. Stone 41 Son. 4 Bacon’s Abridg., 497. 3 Blackstone, 110 — 111. 3 Bouvier’s Inst., 93-113. 3 Burrows, 1266. 1 Cranch, 137 ; Marbury vs. Madison. 8 B. Mon., 652; 'Auditor vs. Hardin. Civil Code, sec. 526. 2 Morehead Sy Brown’s Digest, 1324-1487. Constitution of Ky., 64, sec. 33. 1 Rev. Stat., 327, sec. 1, sub-div. 1-3, and sec. 3. 2 Rev. Stat., 217, sec. 6. 2 Rev. Stat., 389, art. 2, sec. 1. 11 B. M., 154; Justices Clark Co. vs. P. Sy W. Road. 2 Met., 60-66 ; Maddox vs. Graham, Syc. 3 Met., 494;…
1Opinion of the Court
JUD&E ROBERTSON
delivered the opinion op the court:
This is a petition to the circuit court for a mandamus to compel the court of claims of Meade county, Kentucky, to allow and provide for paying the appellant, Dr. Pusey, three hundred dollars for his medical treatment of the *218small-pox in Brandenburg, for about a month, in the spring of the year 1863, in compliance with the request and promise of the county judge of Meade, made to him in the following letter :
“ March 5th, 1863.
“Dr. H. K. Pusey — Dear Sir: You, of course, have heard we have the small-pox in this place. We are deplorably in want…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Goodin v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Commonwealth ex rel. Hickman County v. ScarboroughCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912