Fay v. Edmiston
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Jewell DistHot Court. At the September Term, 1880, of the district court, Edmis-ton, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment for $952.25 against defendants, Fay and two others, who bring the case here. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Error from Jewell DistHot Court. At the September Term, 1880, of the district court, Edmis-ton, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment for $952.25 against defendants, Fay and two others, who bring the case here. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. The principal question raised by the record is: In a suit against Smith, and the sureties on his official bond, is the order of amercement against him conclusive evidence against the sureties of the plaintiffs right to recover, and of the amount of his recovery? The general rule is, that a judgment binds no one but parties…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Beewer, J.:
At the March term, 1877, the district court of Atchison county gave judgment amercing A. B. Smith, sheriff of Jewell county, which judgment was excepted to, and subsequently, at the July term, 1878, affirmed by this court. (Smith v. Marlin, 20 Kas. 572.) After the affirmance of the judgment of amercement, it was duly assigned to the defendant in error, who thereafter instituted an action in the district court of Jewell county, against A. B. Smith and the sureties on his official bond, viz., Patrick Fay, J. D. Robertson and O. L. McClung, to…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. MartinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
3Cited by8 opinions
- City of Topeka v. RitchieSupreme Court of Kansas · 1918
- Fay v. EdmistonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Connor v. CorsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Barker v. WheelerNebraska Supreme Court · 1900
- Park v. EnsignSupreme Court of Kansas · 1903
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.