Case ID: ky_221/html/0186-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Judge Dietzman", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Myers v. Fayette National Bank.
    (Decided September 30, 1927.)
    Appeal from Scott Circuit Court.
    1. Appeal and Error. — Judgment on former appeal is law of case as to questions which it decided, and which were presented again on second trial
    2. Appeal and Error. — Where-, on former appeal, defense was held insufficient,' sustaining demurrers to amended answers not materially changing defense originally relied on, but merely elaborating it, was proper.
    3. Appeal and Error.- — Where, on former appeal, defense was held insufficient, and on second trial where, after demurrers were sustained to amended answers merely elaborating former defense, defendant refused to plead further, entering judgment for plaintiff in accordance with directions of appellate court on former appeal was proper.
    LLEWELLYN F. SINCLAIR for appellant.
    BRADLEY & BRADLEY for appellee.
   Opinion of the Court by

Judge Dietzman

Affirming.

This is the second appeal of this case. The opinion on the former appeal may be found in 211 Ky. 185, 277 S. W. 292. On the return of this ease to the circuit court, the present appellant, defendant below, filed an amended answer and then a second amended answer. These amended and second amended answers, however, did not materially change the defense originally relied upon, and which was held to be insufficient on the former appeal. These amendments elaborated that defense somewhat, but did not materially change it. The decision of this court on the former appeal is the law of the ease, and the lower court therefore correctly sustained the demurrers interposed by the appellee to these amendments offered by the appellant.

As the appellant declined to plead further after the demurrer to these amendments had been sustained, there was nothing for the circuit court to do but enter the judgment it did in accordance with the directions of this court on the former appeal.

That judgment is therefore affirmed.