Lane v. Kasey
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 9 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT. The facts appear in the opinion of the court. 1. None but parties or privies can maintain an action on a written contract. (1 Chitty's Pleading, 3.) The commonwealth could not maintain an action on the bond — it was a nullity.
Read the full summary
CASE 9 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT. The facts appear in the opinion of the court. 1. None but parties or privies can maintain an action on a written contract. (1 Chitty's Pleading, 3.) The commonwealth could not maintain an action on the bond — it was a nullity. (Leigh's Nisi Frius, 658; Spencer vs. Field, 10 Wend., 87.) The bond was not a statutory bond, because the act of 1852, under which it was taken, had been repealed by the act of 1854. (2 Scss. Acts, 1853-4, p. 320; 4 Mon., 484.) There was no consideration for the bond, and it was therefore not obligatory on…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Simpson
The bond upon which this action was brought was executed on the 11th of March, 1854, by J. E. Haynes as principal, and W. F. Lane as his security. It stated on its face that Haynes was the proprietor of the Pickett tobacco warehouse, and was conditioned for the performance by him of all the provisions of the act of assembly which established tobacco inspectors in thePcity of Louisville, approved January 2d, 1852.
Just two days before this bond was executed, an amendatory act had been passed by the legislature, requiring the proprietors of warehouses to execute a bond in the penalty of five…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stevenson v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1822
- Edmonds v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1837
3Cited by2 opinions
- Richardson v. Lee Realty Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
- Terry v. HazlewoodCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1863