City of Louisville v. Garr
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 88 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, LAW AND EQUITY DIVISION. The saving in favor of infants contained in the General Statutes should not be imported by construction into the special or local statute. The same rule ought not to apply to the city that operates on individuals and private corporations.
Read the full summary
Case 88 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, LAW AND EQUITY DIVISION. The saving in favor of infants contained in the General Statutes should not be imported by construction into the special or local statute. The same rule ought not to apply to the city that operates on individuals and private corporations. (Session Acts 1881-2, vol. 1, 1017; Preston v. The City of Louisville, 84 Ky., 119; Covington v. Hoadley, 83 Ky., 444; Covington v. Voskotter, 80 Ky., 219; O’Bannon v. L., C. & L. R. Co., 8 Bush, 348; Woods on Limitation (2d Ed.), sec. 252; Angelí on Limitation, sec.…
1Opinion of the Court
"JUDGE HAZBLRIGG
delivered the opinion or the cotjet.
Section 3, of article 3, chapter 71, of tlie General Statutes, provides that “an action for an injury to the person of the plaintiff, or of his wife, child, ward, apprentice or servant, or for injuries to person ... by any company or corporation . . . shall be commenced within one year next after the cause of action accrued, and not thereafter.”
Section 2, of article i, same chapter, provides that “if a person entitled to bring any of the actions mentioned in the third article of this chapter, except for a penalty or forfeiture, was, at the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barbour v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1885