Case Name: Arnold's ex'x v. The Commonwealth
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1882-02-25
Citations: 80 Ky. 135
Docket Number: 
Parties: Arnold’s ex’x v. The Commonwealth.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
Case 25 — FORFEITURX-
February 25, 1882.
Arnold’s ex’x v. The Commonwealth.
APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.
1. The statute requiring an affidavit that a claim against a decedent’s estate is just, &e., does not apply to the Commonwealth.
2. Nothing in the statute shows an intention to include the state or its agents.
W. H. CHELF FOR APPELLANT.
1. The statute requires that all demands against decedent’s estates shall be verified.
2. The object of bail in misdemeanors is only to secure compliance with the judgment. (1 Duv., 244.)
8. Inasmuch as a defense was made, and the defendant found not guilty, no judgment should have been rendered upon the forfeited bond.
P. W. HARDIN, Attorney General, and J. HAYCRAFT for appellee.
1. The Commonwealth is not embraced by acts of the General Assembly made to operate between individuals, unless the legislative intent is shown to that effect. (Nall v. Springfield, 9 Bush, 674; Commonwealth v. Cook, 8 Bush, 225.)
2. The fact that Berry’s attorney entered‘the plea of “not guilty,” and 1 ' that he was so found upon triai, does not affect the right of the Commonwealth to a judgment upon the bond, inasmuch as he failed to appear in discharge of it.

Opinion:
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion of tiie court.
.The statute in regard to the verification of claims against deceased persons does not apply to the Commonwealth. The motion here is to recover against the representative of a surety on a bail bond, and the defense is that no demand was made. The,purpose of the statute was to purge the
conscience of claimants against the estates of decedents, and does not, by express terms or. by implication, apply to the Commonwealth in a proceeding to enforce the criminal or penal laws. There is no one to make the oath, and nothing appears in the statute by which any intention -can be gathered that the statute should apply to' the sovereign. The party was required by the terms of his bond to appear, and failing to appear in person, a forfeiture was proper, and the fact that a trial was had does not relieve the forfeiture. (See MS. opinion.)
Judgment affirmed.