Shockley v. Niess's Heirs
Shockley v. Niess's Heirs
26 Ky. 96; 3 J.J. Marsh. 96; 1829 Ky. LEXIS 182
Shockley v. Niess's Heirs
Opinion of the Court
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.
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.