Shipp v. Stoll
| Decision Date | 12 October 1923 |
| Parties | SHIPP v. STOLL, CIRCUIT JUDGE. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Petition by Paul E. Shipp, for the use and benefit of Fayette County and others, for a mandatory writ directing and compelling R C. Stoll, Judge of the Fayette Circuit Court, to make certain rulings. Writ denied.
N. B Hays, of Lexington, for petitioner.
John R Allen, of Lexington, for defendant.
Paul E. Shipp has filed his petition in this court for a mandatory writ, directing and compelling the judge of the Fayette circuit court to make certain rulings on the petitioner's motion in the two cases of Shipp, for the Use, etc., v. Rodes et al., reported in 196 Ky. at page 523, 245 S.W. 157. The proceeding is based on the opinion of this court in those cases and the subsequent rulings of the judge of the Fayette circuit court which the petitioner claims are incompatible with the opinion.
After the reversal of the judgments in those cases, for further proceedings in the lower court, the commonwealth, through the Attorney General, filed suits in the Fayette circuit court against the defendants in those actions, claiming an interest in the fees collected by them in excess of that allowed them and their legally authorized deputies under the law, whereupon the trial court entered an order consolidating those actions with the proceedings in which the petitioner was plaintiff. About the same time Fayette county, through its legal officer, tendered and offered to file an intervening petition to be made a party defendant in each of the original actions. These motions were sustained. The petitioner in this proceeding seeks a mandatory order requiring the judge of the Fayette circuit court to vacate and set aside the order consolidating the actions filed by the commonwealth of Kentucky with the original actions filed by the plaintiff, and also an order setting aside the order permitting Fayette county, through its legal representatives, to become a party plaintiff to those proceedings. The ground on which the writ is sought is that it was held in the opinion of this court that neither the state of Kentucky nor Fayette county was a necessary party plaintiff in either of those suits.
It is true that on the facts stated in the petitions it was held that on the failure and refusal of the official representatives of the state and county to institute proceedings the actions could be maintained by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shipp v. Rodes
...question or another a number of times. Shipp v. Rodes, 196 Ky. 523, 245 S.W. 157; Shipp v. Bradley, 210 Ky. 51, 275 S.W. 1; Shipp v. Stoll, 200 Ky. 646, 255 S.W. 75; Shipp v. Doak, 211 Ky. 737, 277 S.W. The facts out of which this controversy grows in their various aspects are stated in the......
-
Shipp, for Use, Etc. v. Rodes
...been before this court on one question or another a number of times. (Shipp v. Rodes, 196 Ky. 523; Shipp v. Bradley, 210 Ky. 51; Shipp v. Stoll, 200 Ky. 646; Shipp v. Doak, 211 Ky. The facts out of which this controversy grows in their various aspects are stated in the opinions referred to ......
-
Bastian Bros. Co. v. Field, Judge
...of Carroll's Kentucky Statutes. At the threshold, and without in any wise involving the merits, we held in the case of Shipp v. Stoll, Judge, 200 Ky. 646, 255 S.W. 75, that an original action in this court for a mandatory process requiring the judge of a circuit court to make certain ruling......
-
Union Trust Co. v. Garnett, Judge
...& Terstegge Co. v. Meriwether, 147 Ky. 577, 144 S. W. 1083; Meriwether v. Quarles, Judge, 147 Ky. 577, 144 S.W. 1083; Shipp v. Stoll, 200 Ky. 646, 255 S.W. 75. It is a familiar rule that a mandamus will lie to set a court in motion, but it cannot be used to control the result. It may compel......