Kearney v. City of Covington
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 57 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of tbe court. 1. Tbe special contract is set forth in defendant’s answer, and the petition, if defective, is tbus aided.
Read the full summary
CASE 57 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of tbe court. 1. Tbe special contract is set forth in defendant’s answer, and the petition, if defective, is tbus aided. (Stephens on Pleading,p. 179.) If such is not tbe case, the court erred in refusing to allow the amended petition to be filed, which set forth facts showing a right of action against the city. 2. The city council having employed Kearney to build the street, on the ground where he subsequently constructed it, the city is bound to pay him, although the ground may not…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Simpson
The appellant having sued the appellee for work and labor done on the streets of the city at the instance of the latter, and not having alleged in his petition any facts which authorized him to recover the value thereof, except the performance of the work, and having proved, on the trial, that the work was done under a special contract that he was to look to the lot-owners for payment, it is perfectly manifest that he could not recover against the city upon the cause of action set forth in his petition. It was decided, between the same parties, at the last December term of this court, “that…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Craycraft v. SelvageCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1874
- Murphy v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1872
- Cohen v. City of HendersonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- Wilkins v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1881
- Baker v. BakerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.