Legal Opinion

Troublesome, on the demise of Dougherty v. Estill

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided October 28, 1809PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION of the Court, by

Ch. J. Bibb.

-In ejectment by the lessee of Dougherty the declaration had been served upon many tenants in possession and Estill was admitted to defend in the room of the casual ejector, who thereupon entered into the common rule, and pleaded not guilty. After two vacations, Foreman applied to be admitted a codefendant, to which the plaintiff objected for want of privity, between the tenants in possession and Foreman. The applicant to support his claim to be admitted, referred to a judgment by default, rendered at the same term on behalf of his lessee against the casual…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Donald v. McKinnonSupreme Court of Florida · 1880
  2. Doe v. WestIndiana Supreme Court · 1821
  3. Olive v. AdamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
  4. Sherry v. Denn ex dem. State BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1847
  5. South Fork Canal Co. v. GordonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1868

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API