Lundy v. Hunt

276 S.W. 838, 210 Ky. 803, 1925 Ky. LEXIS 784
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
DecidedOctober 27, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 276 S.W. 838 (Lundy v. Hunt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lundy v. Hunt, 276 S.W. 838, 210 Ky. 803, 1925 Ky. LEXIS 784 (Ky. 1925).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge McCandless

Affirming.

This is a forcible detainer proceeding begun in September, 1921, by James Lundy against Perry Hunt in a justice’s court in Pike county. An inquisition was regularly field by the justice and a verdict of guilty returned against Hunt by the jury, whereupon Hunt executed bond and traversed the inquisition. The original papers were transferred to the circuit court but were inadvertently “filed away” without the case being docketed and nothing was done until the spring of 1924, when on motion of Lundy the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. That judgment was afterward set aside and the case continued to the July term, a‘t which time a jury trial was had, and a directed verdict of “not guilty” was returned by the jury.

No motion for a new trial was filed, nor does the record disclose any order of court filing or tendering a bill of exceptions. There is in the record, however, a paper approved by the circuit judge and purporting to be such a bill. It refers to certain depositions as being lead and contains a transcript of depositions without identifying them as being the ones used in the trial, nor 'does it show any exception was taken to any ruling .of the court during the progress of the trial. Such a paper is ineffectual for any purpose.

A motion for a new trial is necessary in order to bring before this court the alleged error in giving a peremptory instruction, and in the absence of such a motion this court will not consider that ground. Kettler v. Slaughter, 21 Rep. 1937.

Again, in the absence of a motion and grounds for a new trial and of a bill of exceptions, there is nothing for the court to consider except the pleadings in the case, and these support the judgment, which is accordingly affirmed.

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

Related

Howard v. Commonwealth
154 S.W.2d 547 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1941)
Hickey v. Glass
149 S.W.2d 535 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1941)
Duvall v. Marshall
132 S.W.2d 511 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1939)
Wilson v. Louisville N. R. Co.
77 S.W.2d 416 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
Mann v. Commonwealth
10 S.W.2d 1094 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 S.W. 838, 210 Ky. 803, 1925 Ky. LEXIS 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lundy-v-hunt-kyctapphigh-1925.