Smith v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Smith v. Johnson

5 Ky. Op. 97, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 214

DecidedJanuary 26, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ky. Op. 97 (Smith v. Johnson) 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

Smith v. Johnson, 5 Ky. Op. 97, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 214 (Ky. Ct. App. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Peters.

Although the demurrer of Johnson and wife, and that of the city of 'Covington, were both sustained to the petition and leave was granted appellant to amend it, he failed to do so, and took the risk of a trial in this court.

The petition is palpably defective in failing to allege that Johnson and wife had notice of the passage of the ordinance by the council to repair the sidewalks fronting their property, either actually or constructively. It is not averred that said ordinance was printed in the newspaper of a city, or otherwise, and circulated as required' by Sec. 6, Art. 2 of the charter of the city, which might have been regarded as constructive notice to Johnson and wife, and thereby made them responsible. Nor are facts alleged showing the failure of the city council to take such action by it as to make Johnson and wife liable for the work, and thereby throw the responsibility on the city.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge Peters.

Although the demurrer of Johnson and wife, and that of the city of 'Covington, were both sustained to the petition and leave was granted appellant to amend it, he failed to do so, and took the risk of a trial in this court.

The petition is palpably defective in failing to allege that Johnson and wife had notice of the passage of the ordinance by the council to repair the sidewalks fronting their property, either actually or constructively. It is not averred that said ordinance was printed in the newspaper of a city, or otherwise, and circulated as required' by Sec. 6, Art. 2 of the charter of the city, which might have been regarded as constructive notice to Johnson and wife, and thereby made them responsible. Nor are facts alleged showing the failure of the city council to take such action by it as to make Johnson and wife liable for the work, and thereby throw the responsibility on the city.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ky. Op. 97, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-johnson-kyctapp-1872.