Cox v. Gill
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 93 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL PROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT. The cause was prematurely submitted, as the time allowed by law to the defendants for filing their rejoinder had not expired. This was a clerical misprision, for which the judgment should be reversed.
Read the full summary
Case 93 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL PROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT. The cause was prematurely submitted, as the time allowed by law to the defendants for filing their rejoinder had not expired. This was a clerical misprision, for which the judgment should be reversed. (Civil Code, sections 105, 364 and 517.) 1. The cause was submitted for trial and judgment without objection, and, therefore, appellants can not complain that the submission was premature. 2. As the plaintiff’s demurrer to the answer as amended should have been sustained, the judgment must be affirmed, even though the submission was…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion of the court.
Under the provisions of chapter 81, section 17, General Statutes, “no fact officially stated by .an officer in respect of a matter about which he is required by law to make a statement in writing, either in the form of a certificate, return or otherwise, shall be called in question, except upon the allegation of fraud in the party benefited thereby, or mistake on the part of the officer, unless in a direct proceeding against the officer or his sureties.” Prior to the passage of this statute, it had been held in Ford v. Teal, 7 Bush, 156, and other…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ford v. TealCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1870
- Harpending's Executors v. WylieCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1878
3Cited by10 opinions
- Dukes v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- Byers v. First State BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
- Hall v. HallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
- Tichenor v. YankeyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
- Bingham v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.