Cunningham v. Collins

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Cunningham v. Collins

2 Ky. Op. 212, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 333

DecidedFebruary 7, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ky. Op. 212 (Cunningham v. Collins) 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

Cunningham v. Collins, 2 Ky. Op. 212, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 333 (Ky. Ct. App. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Kobertson :

The appellant’s answer, artfully evasive, denies neither the title of the appellees not her own actual possession of their ground. Denying that she "unlawfully holds possession of a lot belonging to the plaintiffs,” does not deny that she was in possession in fact but denies only that her posession is unlawful, nor, qualified as it is, can it be construed as a plain and simple denial of the alleged title. Nor does the denial “that she keeps plff. out of his rightful property” deny that she héld the ground nor that it was the property of his wife, who was co-plff. If she was not in possession she would have said so in simple and unambiguous terms, and thereby not only escaped costs but entitled herself to judgment for costs.

Properly scrutinized and tested her answer, therefore, admits both the title of the appelees and her own posession.

And consequently the judgment against her is right, and is therefore affirmed.

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

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Kobertson :

The appellant’s answer, artfully evasive, denies neither the title of the appellees not her own actual possession of their ground. Denying that she "unlawfully holds possession of a lot belonging to the plaintiffs,” does not deny that she was in possession in fact but denies only that her posession is unlawful, nor, qualified as it is, can it be construed as a plain and simple denial of the alleged title. Nor does the denial “that she keeps plff. out of his rightful property” deny that she héld the ground nor that it was the property of his wife, who was co-plff. If she was not in possession she would have said so in simple and unambiguous terms, and thereby not only escaped costs but entitled herself to judgment for costs.

Properly scrutinized and tested her answer, therefore, admits both the title of the appelees and her own posession.

And consequently the judgment against her is right, and is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ky. Op. 212, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-collins-kyctapp-1868.