Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Chenault

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Chenault

371 S.W.2d 948

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

DecidedNovember 1, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 371 S.W.2d 948 (Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Chenault) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Chenault, 371 S.W.2d 948 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMORE, Judge.

In Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Highways v. Wilkins, Ky., 320 S.W.2d 125 (1959), it was held that if one party, in appealing to the circuit court from a county court judgment pursuant to KRS 177.087, has filed a certified copy of the county court judgment, failure of the other party to file a copy of the same judgment with his separate appeal thereafter filed is not fatal to the latter appeal.

In this case the landowners appealed first, but failed to file with their statement of parties and exceptions a copy of the county court judgment as required by KRS 177.087. Thereafter and within thirty days following the date of the county court judgment the condemnor also appealed. The condemnor’s appeal was sufficient in all respects, including the filing of a certified copy of the county court judgment. The sole question is whether the filing of the copy by the condemnor as a part of its appeal cured the defect in the landowners’ appeal. Our conclusion is that it did.

It is suggested that the condemnor could have nullified the appeal of the landowners by dismissing its own, a stratagem that ought not be required or encouraged. But we do not accept the premise. That one party may cure another’s omission does not imply a converse conclusion that he may [949]*949later “uncure” it. In any event, the con-demnor did not in fact dismiss its appeal, and we express this dictum only because it may serve to clarify the matter in future -cases.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PALMORE, Judge.

In Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Highways v. Wilkins, Ky., 320 S.W.2d 125 (1959), it was held that if one party, in appealing to the circuit court from a county court judgment pursuant to KRS 177.087, has filed a certified copy of the county court judgment, failure of the other party to file a copy of the same judgment with his separate appeal thereafter filed is not fatal to the latter appeal.

In this case the landowners appealed first, but failed to file with their statement of parties and exceptions a copy of the county court judgment as required by KRS 177.087. Thereafter and within thirty days following the date of the county court judgment the condemnor also appealed. The condemnor’s appeal was sufficient in all respects, including the filing of a certified copy of the county court judgment. The sole question is whether the filing of the copy by the condemnor as a part of its appeal cured the defect in the landowners’ appeal. Our conclusion is that it did.

It is suggested that the condemnor could have nullified the appeal of the landowners by dismissing its own, a stratagem that ought not be required or encouraged. But we do not accept the premise. That one party may cure another’s omission does not imply a converse conclusion that he may [949]*949later “uncure” it. In any event, the con-demnor did not in fact dismiss its appeal, and we express this dictum only because it may serve to clarify the matter in future -cases.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 S.W.2d 948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-department-of-highways-v-chenault-kyctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack