Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad v. Woolley
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 55 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL EROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. CITED . 9 Johns. 142, Hotchkiss v. LeRoy. 3 Barb. 64, Brighart v. Gardner. 4 E. D. Smith, 253, Cook v. Ritter. 2 Met. 244, Savings Bank of Oin. v. Benton. 26 111. 218, Chicago, &c. R. R. v. Lamed. 22 La. Ann. 85, Voorhies v. Harrison.
Read the full summary
Case 55 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL EROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. CITED . 9 Johns. 142, Hotchkiss v. LeRoy. 3 Barb. 64, Brighart v. Gardner. 4 E. D. Smith, 253, Cook v. Ritter. 2 Met. 244, Savings Bank of Oin. v. Benton. 26 111. 218, Chicago, &c. R. R. v. Lamed. 22 La. Ann. 85, Voorhies v. Harrison. CITED • 2 Parsons on Contracts, page 522. 4 Harrington, 454, Draper v. Randolph. 2 Duvall, 490. 12 Vermont, 50. 2 Heiskel, 367, Planters’ Bank of Tenn. v. Massey. 38 111. 84, Morgan v. Roberts. 9 Cowen, 57. 30 Texas, 55, Ector v. Wiggins.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Lindsay
There is no equitable issue involved in this action. It is an ordinary proceeding, and no reason existed why it should have been instituted in the chancery court, except that the defendant was a foreign corporation, and the plaintiff desired to reach and attach a fund in the hands of the receiver of said court.
The defendant discharged the attachment by the execution of the bond prescribed by section 242 of the Civil Code of Practice, and the cause might then, upon his motion, have been transferred to the court of common pleas. The defendant entered a motion to that effect, but afterward…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Elk Valley Coal Co. v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Caddy Oil Co. v. SommerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
- Kozy Theatre Co. v. LoveCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1921
- St. Louis Gunning Advertising Co. v. Wanamaker & BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Weissinger Tobacco Co. v. Van BurenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.