Gilpin v. Hord
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 30 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Appellees were the sureties of Warder as well as of the other defendants in the judgment, and the judgment having been affirmed as to him, appellees are liable on the bond.
Read the full summary
Case 30 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Appellees were the sureties of Warder as well as of the other defendants in the judgment, and the judgment having been affirmed as to him, appellees are liable on the bond. (Civil Code, secs. 748, 749, 26 and 27; Hobbs, &c., v. King, &c., 3 Met., 249; Young v. Ditto, 2 J. J. M., 72; Salter, &c., v. Salter, &c., 6 Bush, 635; 4 Mon., 448; 5 Litt., 327; 12 B. M., 528; 12 Bush, 128; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary; Waite’s Actions and Defenses.) 2. The failure of the appellate court to award damages upon the affirmance of a judgment does…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion oe the court.
The appellant obtained a judgment in the Lewis circuit court against H. T. Warder, as sheriff of Lewis county, and others as his sureties, for the sum of eight hundred dollars, together with interest thereon and costs. The sheriff, Warder, and his sure*215ties, jointly appealed the cause to the Superior Court. The judgment of the circuit court was superseded by the appellees, as the sureties of all of the defendants, by executing a supersedeas bond in the usual form. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court as to the sheriff…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Paul v. Fidelity Deposit Co. of MarylandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1939
- Fischer v. BayerOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Orr v. HopkinsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1884