Spurr v. Batchelor
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 101 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROTt FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. While technical rules of practice are necessary in the administration of justice, and ought to be substantially complied with, they should not be so strictly construed or rigidly enforced as to result in a miscarriage of justice or denial to the litigant of tbe right to have his case presented. 2. No motion for a new trial is necessary in order to have this court review the error of a lower court in refusing…
Read the full summary
Case 101 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROTt FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. While technical rules of practice are necessary in the administration of justice, and ought to be substantially complied with, they should not be so strictly construed or rigidly enforced as to result in a miscarriage of justice or denial to the litigant of tbe right to have his case presented. 2. No motion for a new trial is necessary in order to have this court review the error of a lower court in refusing to permit pleadings to be filed. (No brief in the record.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE WHITE
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This action was brought by .appellee in the Fayette Circuit Court against appellant, R. J. Spurr and one E. D. Spurr, upon a written contract. Tbe petition was-filed February 15, 1895, and on- tbe 12th day of' *607April, 1895, tie record shows that a joint answer, set-off and counter claim, which, however, was sworn to by E. D. Spurr only, was filed. The issues thus tendered by the joint answer were joined by reply and on November 23, 1895, a jury was empaneled and .sworn and adjourned' over to 2Gth. On November 2Gth by consent the jury was withdrawn,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Louisville Property Co. v. Whitley County Stave Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915