Case ID: ky_33/html/0035-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chief Justice Robertson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Chalfant et al. vs. Monroe et al.
    
    debt.
    [Mr. Trimble for Plaintiffs: Messrs. Moreliead and Brown for Defendants.]
    From the Circuit Court rob Pendleton County.
    
      April 22.
    Against infants default!5 Unless dianZa'ñtem duly appointed and he^p^rs’, the judg’.t will be erroneous.
    against adminisare to^e levied’ first, of the as" the Tea^es’tate!' for baIa(¡7g A judgment to be levied oiboth at the sametimo, is ertoneous,
   Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This appeal calls in question the following judgment:— « This day came the plaintiffs by their attorney, and “ upon the motion of the said plaintiffs, it is ordered that “William K. Wall be appointed guardian ad litem to “ the infant defendants aforesaid; and the said defen- “ dants being solemnly called, came not, but made de- “ fault, and the said administrator and infants, by their “ said guardian, failing to enter any defence herein, “ therefore it is considered by the court, that the said “ plaintiffs recover against the said defendants, the sum “ of five hundred and forty dollars, the debt, &c. and “ also their costs, &c. to be levied of the assets in the “ hands of the administrator to be administered, and « of the real estate which has descended to said infant “ heirs from their .s,aid ancestor.”

Such a judgment cannot stand.

First. No judgment by default should ever be rendered against infants. Nor was it proper to render a judgment against the infants in this case without any defence or appearance by their guardian; and the more especially, as it does not appear that he ever assented to his appointment, or had ever any notice of it.

Second. It was erroneous to render a judgment against the administrator and heirs to be levied jointly and at the same time. The judgment in such a case, should direct the levy to be first made of the personal assets. Leathers vs. McGlassen, 3 Mon. 224.

Wherefore, it is considered by this Court, that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and the cause remanded.