TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Kellar

Clark v. Kellar, 66 Ky. 223 (1867)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 7, 1867
Judges
Williams
Citations
66 Ky. 2233 Bush 2231867 Ky. LEXIS 172
Headnotes
To prevent the statute of limitations from running, a suit must be brought and prosecuted in good faith; and, if the time constituting the bar is permitted to elapse between the time of suing out one process until another, the mere bringing the suit will not prevent the statute from running, and is no legal reason why the bar should be disallowed.
Summary
CASE 70 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. CITED— « Revised Statutes, p. 432; Civil Code, sec. 65. 18 B. Mon., 238; 7 B. Mon., 315. 7 B. Mon., 116; 2 B. Mon., 470. 13 B. Mon., 410-11; 13 B. Mon., 310. 1 Met., 149 ; 2 Dana, 406; 6 B. Mon., 447. CITED— 7 B. Mon., 315; Bray vs. Howard, fyc. Angelí on Limitations, sec. 330. 9 Paige’s (N. Y.) Ch. Ií.,,512 ; Hayden vs. Bucklin. 1 Paige, 564; Webb vs. Pell. Act of 1838, Limiting Actions, Lough., 558. 28 Pennsylvania R., 4 Casey, 261.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Williams

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

JUDGE WILLIAMS

delivered the opinion of the court:

It being about five years after the last process and return of not found until another process was sued out and executed, and Kellar residing all this time in the city of Louisville, where he resided when the account for merchandise was created, authorized the special find *224 ing of the jury that the suit had not, in good faith, been prosecuted. To prevent the statute of limitations from running, a suit must be brought and prosecuted in good faith; and, if the time constituting the bar is permitted to elapse between the suing out of one process until another, the mere bringing the suit will not prevent the statute from running, and is no legal reason why the bar should be disallowed.

The court properly refused to render judgment in favor of appellant on this special verdict, although the jury also found that the account was proved, and that the balance, as charged, had never been paid, and properly dismissed the action.- ,-

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1899: 11903: 11945: 118992026peak 1899 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Anderson v. Abbott61 F. Supp. 888 (W.D. Ky. 1945)
  2. Louisville & N. R. R. v. Hall74 S.W. 280 (Ky. Ct. App. 1903)
  3. City of Louisville v. Meglemry52 S.W. 1052 (Ky. Ct. App. 1899)

Most recent

  1. Anderson v. Abbott61 F. Supp. 888 (W.D. Ky. 1945)
  2. Louisville & N. R. R. v. Hall74 S.W. 280 (Ky. Ct. App. 1903)
  3. City of Louisville v. Meglemry52 S.W. 1052 (Ky. Ct. App. 1899)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list