Alexander v. Noland
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 21 —CAVEAT— APPEAL PROM ESTILL CIRCUIT COURT. An instruction is erroneous that requires the jury to look to the pleadings to ascertain facts as proved or admitted. (Tipton v. Triplett, 1 Met., 570; Alland v. Smith, 2 Met., 297; Mickey v. Commonwealth, 9 Bush, 595.) To allow an amendment to a pleading when in the furtherance of justice and a correct determination of the rights of the parties, is within the discretion of the trial court, and not a reversible error.
Read the full summary
Case 21 —CAVEAT— APPEAL PROM ESTILL CIRCUIT COURT. An instruction is erroneous that requires the jury to look to the pleadings to ascertain facts as proved or admitted. (Tipton v. Triplett, 1 Met., 570; Alland v. Smith, 2 Met., 297; Mickey v. Commonwealth, 9 Bush, 595.) To allow an amendment to a pleading when in the furtherance of justice and a correct determination of the rights of the parties, is within the discretion of the trial court, and not a reversible error. (Greer v. City of Covington, 83 Ky.,' 410.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion op the court.
The appellants in August, 18c3, entered a caveat with the Register of the Land Office, to prevent the issuing of a patent to the appellee for seventy acres of land lying in Estill county, Ky. A copy of the caveat certified by the Register, was, within sixty days from the time -it was entered, lodged with the clerk of the Estill Circuit Court, and the appellee having been duly served with summons, filed his answer controverting the appellants’ right to the said land. Section 473, of the Civil Code, under which the proceedings were had, provides:…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Preston v. PrestonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887
3Cited by2 opinions
- Daniel v. New Era Land Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- Burchett v. RoopCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926