Kercheval v. Ambler, 34 Ky. 166 (1836)

Citation: Kercheval v. Ambler, 34 Ky. 166 (1836)
Parent Document: Kercheval v. Ambler, 34 Ky. 166 (1836)
Jurisdiction: Kentucky (state)
Effective Date: 1836-06-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7459288/kercheval-v-ambler/ ↗

Full Text

967 chars

Without intending to be understood as intimating What would be Forman’s remedy—whether by an action of ejectment, or a warrant for forcible entry and detainer, or some other legal mode—it seems to us that, it was the duty of the sheriff to execute Ambler’s Writ against Kercheval, and that Ambler entered in virtue of that writ lawfully, and not tortiously; and, as of course, the law would imply a retention of actual possession by him, until he manifested a determination to abandon it, even though thé possessio pedis may not have been continued, neither Kercheval nor Forman had any legal right4o intrude on his actual possession without his consent; and, if either of them did so, he is liable to restitution in this proceeding. If he have a better right than Ambler to the possession, his only remedy, allowed by law, is that of some legal process—when their_ respective claims' to possession; hitherto unlitigated, may be tried and determined according to law.

Other Sections in This Document (21)

Full Text