Kennedy v. Jack
Tennessee Supreme Court
W. Blackford sued Kennedy at law. — Jack gave bond as security for Blackford, with condition, “that Blackford should prosecute the suit, hy him instituted against Kennedy with effect — or in case of failure, pay and satisfy all costs and charges, that may accrue, by wrongfully bringing the suitf on this Kennedy has brought debt, and declared on a bond for $>250 00. Jack prays oyer of the condition, and pleads, “conditions performed.'1'1 To which Kennedy replied, that…
Read the full summary
W. Blackford sued Kennedy at law. — Jack gave bond as security for Blackford, with condition, “that Blackford should prosecute the suit, hy him instituted against Kennedy with effect — or in case of failure, pay and satisfy all costs and charges, that may accrue, by wrongfully bringing the suitf on this Kennedy has brought debt, and declared on a bond for $>250 00. Jack prays oyer of the condition, and pleads, “conditions performed.'1'1 To which Kennedy replied, that “Blackford obtained judgment against him, in the county, circuit and supreme court. But that he filed his bill in equity, and…
1Per curiam
The question is, whether Jack is liable for the costs ¿warded in equity, to be paid by Kennedy, firstly, and by Blackford secondly — on his bond given at law, as security for the costs. The condition to pay all costs, &c. — must mean all costs awarded against the plaintiff at law, by a court having cognizance of the writ for which security was given, otherwise the condition is larger, that the act of 1787, ch. 19, requires or authorises. By this act, the condition should be, Ho pay defendant all 'costs and damages in case of failure to prosecute, as may be *83awarded against the plaintiff, by…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Brotherton v. SolomonDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1970
- Coker v. Armco Drainage & Metal Products Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1951