Patterson v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 01 June 1813
• Citation: 6 Ky. 80
• Parties: Patterson v. Matthews and wife.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

6 Ky. 80

Patterson v. Matthews and wife.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 1, 1813

OWSLEY Judge absent.

OPINION

BOYLE Chief Justice.

PATTERSON brought an action of trespass quare clausum fregit et bonis asportatis in the Pulaski Circuit Court against Glover Matthews and Nancy Matthews, his wife Nathaniel Matthews and Elizabeth Wilson. The original writ was returnable to the October term, 1809, was directed to the sheriff of Clarke county, and executed upon Glover Matthews and wife, and Elizabeth Wilson, the 18th of September, and a copy of the declaration delivered. An alias issued against Nathaniel Matthews, directed to the sheriff of Pulaski, and was executed during the October term; and at the April term, 1810, a judgment by default was obtained against the whole of the defendants, for $115 and costs.

A new trial ought not to be granted on account of the neglect of the agent or attorney of the party applying for it.

The neglect of the attorney or agent, is the neglect of the principal.

To stay proceedings upon the judgment, and obtain a new trial, Glover Matthews and wife filed their bill in chancery, in which they in substance allege that they were not guilty of the trespass complained of, and assign as a reason for not having defended the suit, that he had the misfortune to be entirely blind and being in consequence of his blindness incapable of personally attending to the defense of the suit, he had engaged as his agent for that purpose, his co-defendant, Nathaniel Matthews, to whom he gave money to employ a lawyer; but that the said agent had either deceived the complainants, or the lawyer had deceived him, and no defense was made.

The answer denies the material allegations of the bill, and insists that the reason assigned for not defending the suit, is not a sufficient ground for decreeing a new trial.

On a final hearing the Court below decided that the former verdict and judgment should be set aside, and a new trial awarded: from which decree this appeal has been prosecuted.

It cannot be doubted that cases have and may occur in which a Court of Equity may with propriety interpose to grant a new trial; but the case made out by the complainants does not appear to be one of this description. It is a settled rule that a new trial ought not to be awarded on account of the neglect of the agent or attorney of the party applying for it; for such neglect is equivalent to the...