Anderson v. Brady
District Court, E.D. Kentucky
1Opinion of the Court
SWINFORD, District Judge.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend the petition to conform to the proof as it relates to the claim against L. G. Brisbin and E. W. Seaton should be overruled.
To permit this amendment to be filed would be in effect to permit the bringing of the action against new parties in whose favor the statute of limitation has long since run. KRS 413.120. This statute of limitation bars any right of action against these named defendants personally. Section 413.200 KRS bars any right of action against them in their representative capacity. Forrest v. Jack, Receiver, 294 U.S. 158, 55 S.Ct.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Forrest v. JackSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- L. E. Whitham Const. Co. v. RemerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
- Schram v. PooleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- Hart v. BurkeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wagner v. New York, Ontario and Western RailwayDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
- Cone v. ShunkaDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1966