Scott v. Tully
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 5 — WRIT OF PROHIBITION — APPEAL PROM M’CBACKEN CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Section 1701 of the Kentucky Statutes is special or class legislation and is in conflict with the general exemption law of the State. Schoolcraft’s Admr. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 13 Ky. Law Rep., 517; Kentucky Trust Co. of Louisville v. Lewis, 82 Ky., 579; Winchester Bldg. & L. Assn. v. Gordon, 12 Bush, 110; Smith v. Warden, 4 Ky. Law Rep., 553. 2. The writ of prohibition was a proper remedy.
Read the full summary
Case 5 — WRIT OF PROHIBITION — APPEAL PROM M’CBACKEN CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Section 1701 of the Kentucky Statutes is special or class legislation and is in conflict with the general exemption law of the State. Schoolcraft’s Admr. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 13 Ky. Law Rep., 517; Kentucky Trust Co. of Louisville v. Lewis, 82 Ky., 579; Winchester Bldg. & L. Assn. v. Gordon, 12 Bush, 110; Smith v. Warden, 4 Ky. Law Rep., 553. 2. The writ of prohibition was a proper remedy. Gould v. Capper, 5 East, 345; Spelling on Extraordinary Relief, vol. 2, sec. 1732; Arnold v. Shield, 5 Dana, 20; Pennington v.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PAYNTER
delivered the opinion of the court.
There was pending before J. C. Tully, a justice of the peace of McCracken county, an action wherein the Jake *70Beiterman Grocer Company sued James S. Scott to recover on an account for. $21.87, in which, action a general order of attachment was obtained and served upon the Illinois Central Railroad Company as garnishee, and by its answer it appeared that there was due him a sum' less than $50. He was a housekeeper, with a family depending upon him for support, and did not have on hand sufficient provisions, including breadstuffs and animal food,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Arnold v. ShieldsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1837
3Cited by2 opinions
- Chiles v. Howard Sheffer's Ex'orsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. RenbergSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932