Lynch v. Reynolds

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Lynch v. Reynolds

2 Ky. Op. 174, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 451

DecidedDecember 10, 1867

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ky. Op. 174 (Lynch v. Reynolds) 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

Lynch v. Reynolds, 2 Ky. Op. 174, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 451 (Ky. Ct. App. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson :

The judicial presumption from the record as now presented to-this court is that the county court had no jurisdiction to order the sale of the appellant’s corn; and consequently, the sale was apparently void and the appellee’s conversion actionable as a toft.

And, though the 3rd paragraph in the appellee’s petition is on contract not formally conjunctionable with the 1st and 2nd on tort, yet this testimonial misjoinder could not be aken advanage of availably by objecting to it, as the appellee did, only in his answer. Motion to elect or strike out either tort or contract was the only statutory mode of excepting to the misjoinder which, having been [175]*175waived by non-excepion in the prescribed mode was no ground for the non-suit ordered by the court.

Turner, for appellant. Barnes, for Appellee.

The petition and testimony seem to show a good cause of action for damages to some material extent; and therefore the peremptory instruction to find for the appellee was erroneous.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson :

The judicial presumption from the record as now presented to-this court is that the county court had no jurisdiction to order the sale of the appellant’s corn; and consequently, the sale was apparently void and the appellee’s conversion actionable as a toft.

And, though the 3rd paragraph in the appellee’s petition is on contract not formally conjunctionable with the 1st and 2nd on tort, yet this testimonial misjoinder could not be aken advanage of availably by objecting to it, as the appellee did, only in his answer. Motion to elect or strike out either tort or contract was the only statutory mode of excepting to the misjoinder which, having been [175]*175waived by non-excepion in the prescribed mode was no ground for the non-suit ordered by the court.

Turner, for appellant. Barnes, for Appellee.

The petition and testimony seem to show a good cause of action for damages to some material extent; and therefore the peremptory instruction to find for the appellee was erroneous.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ky. Op. 174, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-reynolds-kyctapp-1867.