Hayman & Co. v. Hallam
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 79 — ORDINARY APPEAL PROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT. As the property attached was not more than sufficient to satisfy the prior liens upon it, appellee was not damaged by the failure of appellants to produce the property.
Read the full summary
Case 79 — ORDINARY APPEAL PROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT. As the property attached was not more than sufficient to satisfy the prior liens upon it, appellee was not damaged by the failure of appellants to produce the property. (Civil Code, secs. 214, 216, 221, and 222; Bell v. Western River Improvement and Wrecking Co., 3; Met., 558.) 1. As the answer of appellants was fatally defective, the court properly-refused to set aside the judgment to permit it to be filed. 2. The fact that the attached property was barely sufficient to satisfy the execution liens upon it does not release the appellants,…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellee, Hallam, instituted his action against Hay-man & Co. on a note for $500, with several credits indorsed, and obtained an attachment that was levied on the property of the latter.
At the time the attachment was levied, executions were in the hands of the officer that had been previously levied, and prior liens thereby acquired. The appellants, Hayman & Co., executed a bond, with their co-appellant Arthur as. surety, conditioned that the defendant shall perform the judgment of the court in the action, or have the property or its value…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Edwards-Barnard Co. v. PflanzCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- McCargar v. MooreOregon Supreme Court · 1916
- Gates v. KenneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. First Nat. Bank of TeagueCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Wieland v. OberneAppellate Court of Illinois · 1886
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.