Cunningham v. Collins

Decided February 7, 1868

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · decided 1868-02-07

<p>Pleadings — Answer—Judgment for Costs.</p> <p>The answer was not sufficient to escape a judgment for costs, but was an sion of a lot belonging to the plaintiffs,” is npt a "denial that che was in possession in fact, but only that her possession is unlawful, nor construed as a plain and simple denial of the title alleged m the petition. Nor does a denial “that she keeps plaintiff out of his rightful property” deny that she ,held the ground nor that it was the property of the co-plaintiff. The answer was not sufficient to escape a judgment for costs, but was an admission of title in the plaintiffs, and of her own possession.</p>

Decided 1868-02-07

¶1Opinion op the Court by

Judge Kobertson :

¶2The 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.

¶3Properly scrutinized and tested her answer, therefore, admits both the title of the appelees and her own posession.

¶4And consequently the judgment against her is right, and is therefore affirmed.