Murphy v. Estes
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 65 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM HANCOCK CIRCUIR COURT. 1. Essential amerments in the body of the petition can not be supplied by merely referring to another paper, though it be the foundation of the action.
Read the full summary
Case 65 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROM HANCOCK CIRCUIR COURT. 1. Essential amerments in the body of the petition can not be supplied by merely referring to another paper, though it be the foundation of the action. (Hill for use of Wintersmith v. Barret, 14 B. Mon. 83.) 2. Defects in the petition, not cured by statements in a paper filed WITH AND AS PART OF THE PETITION. . The plaintiff alleged as cause of action that the defendant extm'ted and obtained three hundred and eight dollars and forty-five cents from him without any consideration, and was therefore indebted to him in said sum; and…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HARDIN
delivered the opinion of the court.
This appeal seeks the reversal of a judgment rendered for the appellee for three hundred dollars, on a submission of the law and facts to the court.
The first inquiry is as to the sufficiency of the petition, a demurrer thereto having been overruled. The matter alleged as the cause of action was, that the defendant extorted and obtained three hundred and eight dollars and forty-five cents from the plaintiff without any consideration, and was therefore indebted to him in said sum. A written statement of the plaintiff was filed and referred to in…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Backer v. Penn Lubricating Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908
- Creech v. AbnerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
- Neff v. Gas & Electric ShopCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
- Miller v. McConnellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
- Powers v. TylerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1878