Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1829

Shockley v. Niess's Heirs

Shockley v. Niess's Heirs
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Decided December 28, 1829 · Iiobkrtsoh
26 Ky. 96; 3 J.J. Marsh. 96; 1829 Ky. LEXIS 182

Shockley v. Niess's Heirs

Opinion of the Court

Judge IIobkrtsoh

delivered the opinion of the Court.

William S. Bla'ir was a necessary party in this case. The record does not show that he was ever made a defendant.

It would-,therefore, have been right to dismiss the bill without prejudice, if the complainant had equity.

But his equity, if he showed any, was very questionable, and was of such a character as not to be entitled to the favor of the chancellor.

Moreover, the plaintiff has not complained that the bill was dismissed absolutely, instead <£>f being dismissed Without prejudice.

Denny, for plaintiff; Mills and Brown, for defendant.

He has assigned no error which can embrace this point.

Wherefore) the decree is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.