Hackett v. Rosenham
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 4 — PETITION FOR NEW TRIAL The filing of the petition for a new trial was proper because nothing remained to be done but to enter judgment in accordance with tbe mandate of tbis court, and the filing of tbe petition for a new trial reached tbe result directly.
Read the full summary
Case 4 — PETITION FOR NEW TRIAL The filing of the petition for a new trial was proper because nothing remained to be done but to enter judgment in accordance with tbe mandate of tbis court, and the filing of tbe petition for a new trial reached tbe result directly. McLean v. Nixson, 18 B. M., 768; Maddox’s Exr. v. Williams, 87 Ky., 147; Scott v. Scott, 9 Bush, 174; Civil Code, Secs. 518-520. 1. When tbe mandate and opinion of tbe Court of Appeals directs tbe lower court to enter a certain judgment, tbe lower court must follow tbe mandate and opinion, and it is not error to refuse tbe filing…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE DuRELLE
delivered the opinion of the court.
In the appeal of W. M. Collins & Co. v. L. E. Rosenham this court reversed the judgment appealed from because it fixed the value of the whisky recovered by plaintiff at sixty cents per gallon, when the proof showed that it was not worth exceeding fifty, and for the additional reason that the lower court overruled appellant’s motion to correct the taxation of costs for taking certain depositions in New York; and the case was remanded with instructions to correct the judgment appealed from in these respects; otherwise it was not disturbed (See 19…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Scott v. Scott's ex'rCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1871
3Cited by3 opinions
- Eaton v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
- Garrett v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1952
- Asher v. UhlCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906