In Fitzpatrick v. Vincent, 88 S.W. 1073, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 121, it was held that where the parties took proof on the allegation of champerty, pleaded in the answer, to which no reply was filed, and the case was submitted on the merits with the issue treated as having been joined, the judgment would not be reversed on account of failure to file a reply.
Summary of this case from Cobb v. Farmers Merchants BankDecided September 23, 1993
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
In Fitzpatrick v. Vincent, 88 S.W. 1073, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 121, it was held that where the parties took proof on the allegation of champerty, pleaded in the answer, to which no reply was filed, and the case was submitted on the merits with the issue treated as having been joined, the judgment would not be reversed on account of failure to file a reply.
Summary of this case from Cobb v. Farmers Merchants BankIn Fitzpatrick v. Vincent, 88 S.W. 1073, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 121, it was held that where the parties took proof on the allegations of champerty, pleaded in the answer, to which no reply was filed, and the case was submitted on the merits with the issue treated as having been joined, the judgment would not be reversed on account of failure to file a reply.
Summary of this case from Hunt's Executrix v. MutterFull title:PEOPLE v. FITZPATRICK (VINCENT)
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Date published: Sep 23, 1993
But, be this as it may, the record discloses that the case was tried as though the pleadings were made up and…
Hunt's Executrix v. MutterWickliffe v. First National Bank, 184 Ky. 784, 213 S.W. 581. It is a firmly fixed rule that a verdict will…