Boyd v. Withers
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 94 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT. 1. In equitable actions to surcharge county court settlements, the plaintiff must specify the particular items objected to and must prove the exceptions he takes to them.
Read the full summary
Case 94 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT. 1. In equitable actions to surcharge county court settlements, the plaintiff must specify the particular items objected to and must prove the exceptions he takes to them. Campbell v. Williams, 3 Mon., 324; Tanner v. Skinner, 11 Bush, 129. 2. Whenever a surety has contracted with reference to the conduct of ou|e of the parties- in a -suit, or proceeding in court, he is, in the absence of fraud, or collusion, concluded by the- judgment. Hughart v. Spratt, 78 Ky., 816; Braden v. Mercer, 44 Ohio St., 34; Shepherd v. Pebbles, 38 Wis., 373;…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BURNAM
delivered the opinion of the court.
On November 13, 1883, E. R. Withers qualified as the statutory guardian of appellants in the Bath County Court, and gave bond with appellee W. A. Withers as his security. At the November term, 1885, of that court, upon motion of W. A. Withers to be released from bis obligation as surety for E. R. Withers, the guardian was required to execute a new bond, which he did, giving A. B. Barnes as surety thereon. The new bond was accepted and approved by the court, and an order was entered upon the records of the court, releasing appellee as surety. No…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pepper v. DonnellyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1888
- Jones v. Gallatin CountyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1879
3Cited by8 opinions
- American Bonding & Trust Co. v. CoonsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. HusbandsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Abshire v. RoweCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1902
- McCauley v. American Surety Co. of N.Y.Montana Supreme Court · 1927
- Knox v. CruelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.