Case Name: Shockley vs. Niess's Heirs, &c.
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1829-12-28
Citations: 3 J.J. Marsh. 96
Docket Number: 
Parties: Shockley vs. Niess’s Heirs, &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
Shockley vs. Niess’s Heirs, &c.
'Chancery. 'Case 25.
December 28.
Error to the Franklin Circuit; Henk-y Davidge, Judge.'
Assignment of; error. Parties. Decree.
■Bill dismissed absolutely, ihstead of ■ without prejudice, for want of necessary'party, ■ '¡must be assigned as error or decree will not be reversed, on that ground.'

Opinion:
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.